Memahami Gagasan Anything Goes Paul Karl Feyerabend dan Implikasinya terhadap Pendidikan Islam

Penelitian ini menjelaskan tentang memahami gagasan anything goes Paul Karl Feyerabend dan implikasinya terhadap pendidikan islam. Metode yang digunakan dalam kajian ini menggunakan metode atau pendekatan kepustakaan (library research), bahwa studi pustaka atau kepustakaan dapat diartikan sebagai serangkaian kegiatan yang berkenaan dengan metode pengumpulan data pustaka, membaca dan mencatat serta mengolah bahan penelitian. Hasil penelitian ini menunjukkan bahwa gagasan Feyerabend yang disebut anarkisme epistemologis, yaitu suatu teori epistemologi yang memiliki pandangan tidak ada aturan metodologis untuk pengembangan sains. Sains harus dikembangkan melalui regulasi universal tanpa merusak atau membatasi sains itu sendiri. Menurut Feyerabend, tidak perlu falsifikasi suatu teori untuk menemukan kebenaran, melainkan dengan mencoba menemukan teori-teori baru yang dibangun, dikembangkan, dan dipertahakan (theoretical pluralism). Pluralisme teori penting untuk menghindari keseragaman yang membatasi berpikir kritis. Gagasan anything goes dikemukakan bahwa hipotesis apa pun dapat digunakan, termasuk yang tidak wajar dapat diterima atau menyimpang dari teori umum dan muncul dari proses eksperimental. Feyerabend menekankan bahwa kemajuan ilmiah tidak hanya ditentukan oleh proses induktif seperti sains biasa, tetapi juga secara kontrainduktif. Gagasan Feyerabend tentang anarkisme epistemologis bisa berpengaruh pada pengembangan pendidikan Islam. Dengan prinsip anything goes dalam pemikirannya, seseorang dapat menghilangkan atau setidaknya mengurangi terjadinya monopoli dari satu metode ke metode lainnya.

The declining share of primary data and the neglect of the individual level in international business research

Complementing Nielsen and colleagues’ (2020) analysis of methodological trends in the Journal of International Business Studies over the past 50 years, we examine similar data on methods published in a wider range of leading international business (IB) journals. Our analysis shows a clear decline of studies based on primary data relative to secondary data, and a persistently low level of individual-level studies among the growing body of research using secondary data across all IB journals considered. We discuss the main mechanisms driving these trends and identify the problems of IB’s increasing exposure to the risks inherent in secondary data. We also discuss the implications related to neglecting individual-level data for theory advancement in IB, such as a disregard for novel secondary data opportunities at the individual level and the risk of reduced theoretical pluralism. In doing so, we substantially extend the debate initiated by Nielsen and colleagues (2020).

Crisis” and “re-foundation” of psychology – outmoded topics of theoretical-psychological discourse?

In the 1970-80ies critical assessments of the problematic state of psychology as science were flourishing, stressing the theoretical disintegration and practical irrelevance of psychological basic research and connecting both defects to a misplaced dependence of mainstream psychology on a scientistic notion of scientific cognition. Talks of a crisis in psychology were gaining ground again. Controverting the paradigmatic maturity vs. the pre-/non-paradigmatic state of our discipline or, alternatively, its necessarily multi-paradigmatic character, the quest for unification as against a programmatic theoretical pluralism became a top issue of scholarly dispute. The institutionalisation of ISTP in 1985 and its initial epistemological and meta-theoretical core themes clearly reflected this pervasive trend. Some 35 years later, it has become noticeably quiet about such concerns, and there is no evidence of a renewal of large-scale discussions on a foundational crisis in psychology, let alone of ambitious attempts at theoretical unification or re-foundation – despite the fact that none of the “epistemopathologial“ (Koch, 1981) diagnoses of traditional variable-psychology have been refuted or lost strategic importance. Combining historical retrospection with an exemplary analysis of topical theoretical-psychological subjects, the aim of my paper is to get a clearer idea of where Theoretical Psychology currently stands in regard to the meta-scientific study of psychological theory-problems.

Causation

This chapter studies causation, which occupies a central place in the social sciences. In their attempts to understand and explain ‘why’ social, economic, and political phenomena occur, scholars have dealt with causality in many different ways. The way to define and observe causal relationships has always been at the heart of harsh academic debates in social as well as natural sciences. Drawing on distinctive ontological and epistemological standpoints, at least four different understandings of causation have emerged in political science. Most authors have adopted a correlational-probabilistic understanding of causation, but some have preferred a configurational one, while others have adopted a mechanistic or even a counterfactual understanding. To illustrate the concrete methodological challenges generated by this theoretical pluralism, the chapter discusses how scholars have dealt with causality to explain the impact of European integration on domestic policies and institutions.

Paul K. Feyerabend’s Method against Method

The article examines and criticizes Paul Karl Feyerabend’s seminal work entitled, “How to Be a Good Empiricist—A Plea for Tolerance in Matters Epistemological” which persuasively argued for a pluralistic view of scientific knowledge and theoretical truth. Throughout the article, a number of polemical points, analytic elaborations, and broader philosophical concerns are raised regarding the notions of consistency condition, meaning invariance, theoretical alternatives, and the very principle of theoretical pluralism. The article concludes that Feyerabend’s call for a plurality of theories as the surest path to the progress of science is in need of numerous conceptual qualifications, provoking the reader into critical thinking about the deeper underpinnings of science while providing very few ready-made answers to the problems enunciated.

Social reality as the object of scientific knowledge

The concept of social reality and the problems associated with its scientific knowledge are considered. Author considers three aspects of the meaning and significance of this concept to explicate it. The article analyzes the objective and subjective reasons that determine the theoretical and methodological conservatism of social and humanitarian sciences which is expressed in the ontologization of knowledge and the rejection of theoretical pluralism of scientific research. The article substantiates the basic principles of studying social reality in modern socio-humanitarian science which open up new perspectives of knowledge and transformation of the social world.

Bringing Morgenthau’s ethics in: pluralism, incommensurability and the turn from fragmentation to dialogue in IR

Why did IR pluralism end with so many incommensurable camps? (How) can IR be demarcated as a discipline where these camps can find common ground for dialogue without glossing over theoretical pluralism? To answer the first question, the paper argues that Morgenthau’s critique of IR as social science can explain the proliferation of camps in IR pluralism that are incommensurable and cannot engage in dialogue. By transcending the dilemma of politics as highlighted in Morgenthau’s critique of social science, theories today are ideological camps that bestow on morality an ideological function that justifies their powers-that-be that serve particular means/ends hierarchies. This leads to the proliferation of empirical causal analyses that cannot be debated, since they rely on political interests that theory ideologically justifies and offers internal validation. To avoid this problem, the paper answers the second question by proposing to demarcate the discipline through Morgenthau’s concept of ‘interest defined as power’. It argues that demarcating the discipline on the basis of this concept opens room for engaging in dialogue in IR through leaving open the normative debate of means and ends, and thus acts as a bulwark against the proliferation of ideological camps, while promoting theoretical pluralism.