Falsification by Atrophy: The Kuhnian Process of Rejecting Theory in US Criminology

2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-44
Author(s):  
Brendan D Dooley ◽  
Sean E Goodison
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Oral Histories ◽  
Karl Popper ◽  
The Status ◽  
Criminology And Criminal Justice

Abstract Thomas Kuhn posits that the structure of science promotes revolutionary discovery. The decision of a scientific community to discard the status quo in favour of a revolutionary paradigm is influenced by sociological forces. Karl Popper disagreed, arguing that falsification is required. An examination of a random sample of 501 articles published in 14 peer-reviewed American outlets in criminology and criminal justice from 1993 to 2008 is coupled with oral histories from 17 leading criminologists in determining which approach best characterizes criminology. Twelve per cent of papers falsify theory. When not explicitly falsified, atrophy occurs when theory is overused (exhaustion), ignored (indolence) and subjected to a sustained critique (assault). The intention of the effort is to document and describe falsification and then invite further discourse.

Murder and Maugham: A Neglected Subversive?

2002 ◽  
Vol 75 (4) ◽  
pp. 330-339
Author(s):  
Keith Soothill
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Short Stories ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Labour Government ◽  
Serious Crime ◽  
The Status

Somerset Maugham's writings had huge audiences in the first half of the twentieth century. In much of his work the focus is on people behaving badly. What effect did his work have on his readers? This article examines his short stories, of which approximately one-fifth of the major ones have murder as their theme. Focusing on the murders that Maugham ‘creates’, the claim is that Maugham is subversive, challenging some readily made assumptions. In Maugham's scheme of things, the criminal justice system is usually inappropriate, irrelevant or produces injustice, with ‘rough justice’ usually the best that is on offer. The resourceful can get away with murder. Murder is not the most serious crime for many. Instinct rather than rationality is the best judge. Maugham also emphasises the importance of fate, thus implying we are not in control of our destinies. The article argues that popular authors, such as Maugham, may have contributed much more than is generally recognised to the developing unease about the ‘status quo’ that ultimately led to the landslide victory of the Labour government in 1945.

scholarly journals Scientist As Parrhesiastes

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (25) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Francesco Scotognella
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Method ◽  
Scientific Revolution ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Modus Operandi ◽  
The World ◽  
Paul Feyerabend ◽  
The Status ◽  
The One ◽  
First World

The scientific community of the XX and XXI centuries is a very large companionship, very fragmented and spread all over the world. Moreover, the status of the scientist, which in most cases is a member of the States’ apparati, is significantly different concerning the one of the scientists up to the First World War.The concepts of the scientific revolution of Thomas Kuhn and the scientific anarchy of Paul Feyerabend should be reconsidered in this contest. In particular, the anarchist modus operandi should be shifted from the scientific method, which has become significantly standardized with protocols, to the sociology of the scientific community. Pluralism of the scientific method is possible, but anarchy in the relationships among scientists emerges as more important. The scientist is in many cases a parrhesiastes, a person that says the truth even when he is going to pay because of that, that defends the developed theory or model, by respecting the protocols established in the scientific community. On the other side, each scientist should be a patient beholder that accepts the more solid, and intersubjectively recognized, theories of other scientists.

scholarly journals Scientist as Parrhesiastes

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Scotognella
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Method ◽  
Scientific Revolution ◽  
Scientific Community ◽  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Modus Operandi ◽  
The World ◽  
Paul Feyerabend ◽  
The Status ◽  
The One ◽  
First World

The scientific community of the XX and XXI centuries is a very large companionship, very fragmented and spread all over the world. Moreover, the status of the scientist, which in most cases is a member of the States’ apparati, is significantly different with respect to the one of the scientists up to the First World War.The concepts of scientific revolution of Thomas Kuhn and scientific anarchy of Paul Feyerabend should be reconsidered in this contest. In particular, the anarchist modus operandi should be shifted from the scientific method, that has become significantly standardized with protocols, to the sociology of the scientific community. A pluralism of the scientific method is possible, but an anarchy in the relationships among scientists emerges as more important. The scientist is in many cases a parrhesiastes, a person that says the truth even when he is going to pay because of that, that defends the developed theory or model, by respecting the protocols established in the scientific community. On the other side, each scientist should be a patient beholder that accepts the more solid, and intersubjectively recognized, theories of other scientists.

Restorative justice as a new response to crime - the modern vision and Bulgarian dreamers and opponents

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 344-354
Author(s):  
Dobrinka Chankova
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Governmental Organizations ◽  
Non Governmental Organizations ◽  
The Status ◽  
Modern Vision ◽  
Legal Fact

The concept of restorative justice as a type of alternative justice that focuses on the recovery of harm from crime, the victim, the perpetrator and the status quo in general, rather than on repression, is no longer new. It has long had its international legal basis – acts of the UN, EU, Council of Europe and others. Its main tools – victim-offender mediation, family conferences, problem-solving circles and more, are already established and widely used in most European countries and America, Asia, Australia, and Africa. Although marked in some strategic documents in our country recently, restorative justice is not a legal fact yet. However, in the global criminal crisis, deficits of the criminal justice system's functioning could be successfully, if not completely eliminated, then at least mitigated through its mechanisms. Individual scientists and representatives of non-governmental organizations have not only dreamed since the beginning of this century but are working hard to introduce its models. Politicians and decision-makers and part of the legal community show stubborn rigidity and resistance, refusing to put this issue on the current agenda of society, under various pretexts, but primarily defending their "preserved interests and monopoly" in criminal justice. At the same time, the crisis with the COVID-19 pandemic raises the issue again with particular urgency. That is why it is high time to abandon the unproductive "penal populism", to revitalize the debate for the mentioned novelty and achieve synchronicity between visionaries, dreamers, practitioners and users.

The Perils of Paradigm Mentalities: Revisiting Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper

2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 433-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas C. Walker
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
Political Science ◽  
American Political Science Review ◽  
Thomas Kuhn ◽  
Karl Popper ◽  
Methodological Pluralism ◽  
The Status ◽  
Critical Insight ◽  
American Political Science ◽  
Scientific Achievements

A common theme in the Centennial Issue of the American Political Science Review was how subfields have grown more specialized and insulated from one another. In this essay I argue that this trend has been hastened by the inappropriate incorporation of paradigm mentalities, first presented by Thomas Kuhn and later developed by Imre Lakatos. I show how paradigm mentalities help justify rigid opposition to theoretical alternatives and limit critical insight. While paradigm mentalities may be fitting for disciplines that demonstrate Kuhn'sconcrete scientific achievements,they constrain the study of political science and international relations in particular. I begin with a primer that compares Kuhn and Lakatos to Karl Popper. Next, I point to harmful consequences resulting from applying paradigm mentalities to the study of international relations. Among these is the tendency to act as if realism has earned the status of a paradigm and then invoke criteria of incommensurability and “subsumption” to deflect criticism. I conclude by discussing how Popper's model of science provides a better platform for the study of politics by encouraging theoretical and methodological pluralism.

scholarly journals Fairness, accountability and transparency: notes on algorithmic decision-making in criminal justice

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 126-139 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Chiao
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Machine Learning ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Big Data ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Policy Makers ◽  
Know How ◽  
The Status ◽  
Predictive Software

AbstractOver the last few years, legal scholars, policy-makers, activists and others have generated a vast and rapidly expanding literature concerning the ethical ramifications of using artificial intelligence, machine learning, big data and predictive software in criminal justice contexts. These concerns can be clustered under the headings of fairness, accountability and transparency. First, can we trust technology to be fair, especially given that the data on which the technology is based are biased in various ways? Second, whom can we blame if the technology goes wrong, as it inevitably will on occasion? Finally, does it matter if we do not know how an algorithm works or, relatedly, cannot understand how it reached its decision? I argue that, while these are serious concerns, they are not irresolvable. More importantly, the very same concerns of fairness, accountability and transparency apply, with even greater urgency, to existing modes of decision-making in criminal justice. The question, hence, is comparative: can algorithmic modes of decision-making improve upon the status quo in criminal justice? There is unlikely to be a categorical answer to this question, although there are some reasons for cautious optimism.

scholarly journals True EU citizenship as a precursor to genuine criminal justice in Europe: an analysis of EU citizenship as it relates to a sustainable area of freedom, security and justice

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 291-344
Author(s):  
Marianne L. Wade
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Current Form ◽  
European Institutions ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Face ◽  
Current Context ◽  
Set Up ◽  
The Eu

Abstract This paper traces developments - both legal and political in nature - relating to EU citizenship and compares the status quo to what individuals might expect from citizenship particularly within the context of criminal proceedings. Drawing upon debates in political science, it highlights the divergence between EU citizenship and what would normally be associated with any idea of citizenship. Exploring the parameters of European criminal justice and its revolutionary direction of travel, this essay highlights how strongly exposed EU citizens are to enhanced coercive state power within criminal proceedings because of this status. Consequently it advances an argument that reasonable expectations of citizenship are set up to be disappointed in the current context. This is particularly true as the CJEU scales back the protections associated with EU citizenship in the face of political pressure. It argues that the loss of legitimacy the EU may suffer as a result affects not only its relationship to citizens. As the European institutions take action against democratically elected governments viewed as in breach of fundamental EU values, its potential as a policy-laundering governance level in the criminal justice arena is identified as an enormous legitimacy problem. Analysing developments relevant to citizenship from a criminal justice perspective, this paper demonstrates that reform is urgently required. Leaving EU citizenship in its current form - shaped by Executive powers - is argued to expose the EU to legitimacy arguments it cannot win, as well as individual citizens to injustice in criminal proceedings.

scholarly journals “We Live in the Ruins of Christendom”: Bioethics in a Post-Engelhardtian Age

Conatus ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 99
Author(s):  
Claudia Paganini
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Community ◽  
Status Quo ◽  
The Other ◽  
Creative Power ◽  
The Status ◽  
The One

Hugo Tristram Engelhardt Jr. is a philosopher and a physician who has devoted all his life and all his creative power to developing and promoting a Christian bioethics. At the same time, the American is a personality who polarizes and has received euphoric praise on the one hand and malicious criticism on the other.  This has already been the case during his lifetime and will presumably remain so even after his death, which we wish to commemorate here. In the following contribution I intend to investigate why Engelhardt provokes so different reactions in the scientific community, and I will try to bring closer together the two seemingly irreconcilable parties of Engelhardt admirers and Engelhardt critics. I will do this by focusing on the two most controversial aspects of his research, his critique of the status quo and his concept of an independent Christian bioethics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document