Metaphors Moving Targets in the (Social) Sciences. Why Metaphor? Toward a Metaphorics of Scientific Practice

2001 ◽  
pp. 213-234 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Moving Targets ◽  
The Social

The Social Turn in Moral Psychology

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Fedyk
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Moral Psychology ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Ethical Theory ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Human Life ◽  
The Social ◽  
Philosophical Ethics ◽  
Methodological Problems ◽  
The Relationship

In this book, Mark Fedyk offers a novel analysis of the relationship between moral psychology and allied fields in the social sciences. Fedyk shows how the social sciences can be integrated with moral philosophy, argues for the benefits of such an integration, and offers a new ethical theory that can be used to bridge research between the two. Fedyk argues that moral psychology should take a social turn, investigating the psychological processes that motivate patterns of social behavior defined as ethical using normative information extracted from the social sciences. He points out methodological problems in conventional moral psychology, particularly the increasing methodological and conceptual inconsilience with both philosophical ethics and evolutionary biology. Fedyk's "causal theory of ethics" is designed to provide moral psychology with an ethical theory that can be used without creating tension between its scientific practice and the conceptual vocabulary of philosophical ethics. His account aims both to redirect moral psychology toward more socially realistic questions about human life and to introduce philosophers to a new form of ethical naturalism—a way of thinking about how to use different fields of scientific research to answer some of the traditional questions that are at the heart of ethics.

scholarly journals Scaling the Slippery Slope: How p-values ruined scientific practice in psychology, and how we can fix it immediately

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachariah Basehore
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Slippery Slope ◽  
Complete Picture ◽  
P Values ◽  
Half Century ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Common

For over a half-century, psychologists, educators, and researchers have criticized the common misuses of statistics in the social sciences. Here, I summarize some of the various objections to the blind use of p-values and propose simple adjustments to 1) ameliorate the weaknesses inherent in current statistical practice, and 2) to paint a more complete picture of a study’s results.

scholarly journals INTEGRITY IN SOCIAL HUMANITARIAN SCIENCES AS A PHILOSOPHICAL&METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEM

2019 ◽  
pp. 8-17
Author(s):  
Mykola Ozhevan
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Methodological Problem ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Late Time ◽  
Main Attention ◽  
The Social ◽  
Main Determinants ◽  
The One ◽  
Scientific Atheism

The main determinants of scientific integrity are considered in the article: moral and ethical; religious and ideological; philosophical and methodological; political and legal; social with criminogenic inclusive; technical and technological; advertising and marketing. The main attention is drawn to the crisis in the social and humanitarian sciences which in Ukrainian conditions can be explained in the broad sense by the legacy of the Soviet past, when the social humanitarian sciences (the social sciences and the humanities in western understanding) were predominantly promoted with ideological goals. The quasi scientific practice that drove in Soviet times was the practice of artificial scientification of various political doctrines and ideologies based on the «one correct doctrine» — Marxism-Leninism («scientific communism»; «scientific atheism», etc.). Competing doctrines declared unscientific. At the more late time, the manifestations of scientific malpractice are commercial facilitated researches. To this over-commercialization and over-politicization factors we must add the relativism of the postmodern worldview with its dubious «post-truth» ideal. The article suggests various ways and methods solving the problem of strengthening the scientific integrity: philosophical; moral&ethical; political&legal; corporate-administrative.

Methodological Implications of Imagination

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lene Tanggaard ◽  
Svend Brinkmann
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Social World ◽  
Research Tool ◽  
Final Part ◽  
Human And Social Sciences ◽  
The Social

In this chapter, the authors focus on the methodological implications of imagination in scientific practice and move in two directions at the same time: they outline the methodological implications of using imagination as a research tool, and they address ways in which imagination can be studied in the human and social sciences. These are not unrelated because it might demand particular kinds of imagination to study imagination. The authors underline the importance of “stumbling data” as a kind of “food for thought” for the researcher. To stumble (metaphorically) is a condition for finding out new things about the social world. In the final part of the chapter, the authors suggest that researchers interested in using their own imagination as a research tool should, first, see themselves as farmers, metaphorically speaking, utilizing breaks and instances of stumbling, and, second, decide on heuristics and see mess as a gift.

scholarly journals Credible Confidence: A pragmatic view on the frequentist vs Bayesian debate

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Casper J Albers ◽  
Henk Kiers ◽  
Don van Ravenzwaaij
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Bayesian Analysis ◽  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Binomial Distribution ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Bayesian Approaches ◽  
Interval Estimates ◽  
The Social ◽  
Credible Intervals ◽  
The Mean

The debate between Bayesians and frequentist statisticians has been going on for decades. Whilst there are fundamental theoretical and philosophical differences between both schools of thought, we argue that in two most common situations the practical differences are negligible when off-the-shelve Bayesian analysis (i.e., using ‘objective’ priors) is used. We emphasize this reasoning by focusing on interval estimates: confidence intervals and credible intervals. We show that this is the case for the most common empirical situations in the social sciences, the estimation of a proportion of a binomial distribution and the estimation of the mean of a unimodal distribution. Numerical differences between both approaches are small, sometimes even smaller than those between two competing frequentist or two competing Bayesian approaches. We outline the ramifications of this for scientific practice.

scholarly journals Credible Confidence: A Pragmatic View on the Frequentist vs Bayesian Debate

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Casper J. Albers ◽  
Henk A. L. Kiers ◽  
Don van Ravenzwaaij
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Bayesian Analysis ◽  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Binomial Distribution ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Bayesian Approaches ◽  
Interval Estimates ◽  
The Social ◽  
Credible Intervals ◽  
The Mean

The debate between Bayesians and frequentist statisticians has been going on for decades. Whilst there are fundamental theoretical and philosophical differences between both schools of thought, we argue that in two most common situations the practical differences are negligible when off-the-shelf Bayesian analysis (i.e., using ‘objective’ priors) is used. We emphasize this reasoning by focusing on interval estimates: confidence intervals and credible intervals. We show that this is the case for the most common empirical situations in the social sciences, the estimation of a proportion of a binomial distribution and the estimation of the mean of a unimodal distribution. Numerical differences between both approaches are small, sometimes even smaller than those between two competing frequentist or two competing Bayesian approaches. We outline the ramifications of this for scientific practice.

scholarly journals INTEGRITY IN SOCIAL HUMANITARIAN SCIENCES AS A PHILOSOPHICAL&METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEM

2019 ◽  
pp. 8-17
Author(s):  
Mykola Ozhevan
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Methodological Problem ◽  
Scientific Practice ◽  
Scientific Integrity ◽  
Late Time ◽  
Main Attention ◽  
The Social ◽  
Main Determinants ◽  
The One ◽  
Scientific Atheism

The main determinants of scientific integrity are considered in the article: moral and ethical; religious and ideological; philosophical and methodological; political and legal; social with criminogenic inclusive; technical and technological; advertising and marketing. The main attention is drawn to the crisis in the social and humanitarian sciences which in Ukrainian conditions can be explained in the broad sense by the legacy of the Soviet past, when the social humanitarian sciences (the social sciences and the humanities in western understanding) were predominantly promoted with ideological goals. The quasi scientific practice that drove in Soviet times was the practice of artificial scientification of various political doctrines and ideologies based on the «one correct doctrine» — Marxism-Leninism («scientific communism»; «scientific atheism», etc.). Competing doctrines declared unscientific. At the more late time, the manifestations of scientific malpractice are commercial facilitated researches. To this over-commercialization and over-politicization factors we must add the relativism of the postmodern worldview with its dubious «post-truth» ideal. The article suggests various ways and methods solving the problem of strengthening the scientific integrity: philosophical; moral&ethical; political&legal; corporate-administrative.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document