Sunday, June 06, 2010

Contrastive Explanations and Debates about the Strong Programme in the Sociology of Science

In a recent issue of Sociology of Science, Jeff Kochan examines the use of "contrastive explanations" in critiques of the Strong Programme. I really enjoyed this article because it explains the Strong Programme methodology in a clear, understandable manner. And, it makes some very interesting methodological arguments.

The article is a pseudo-response piece to critiques of the Strong Programme methodology that were advanced separately by Nick Tosh and Tim Lewens (referred to in the article as "TL", and the same herein).  Kochan starts with a description of contrastive explanation with the simple information request: "Why choose B, rather than any of the other alternatives in which A is true?" In this statement, "A" denotes the range of alternatives available from which "B" is chosen, which Kochan calls the "contrast space." The interesting thing about the idea of the contrast space is that it imposes structural conditions on an explanation. My take on it is that it is more than just "you cannot explain "B" without explaining "A"". Rather, the explanation of "B" can only be described within "A". That is, B, from the original information request, is a subset of A.

Methodologically speaking, this is fascinating because it very neatly explains how sociologists (especially my own teachers) examine scientific controversies and competing theories. My professor, Thomas Schlich, used to say that the most important step in any analysis is to show that you understand (or even assume) that your subject's perspective is internally consistent. Meaning, the scientist, physician, quack, holds to a countervailing opinion because, although they all see the same phenomenon, they "understand" it in the context of their own emotional-philosophical-social epistemic. If we return to the original information request, it means that different people will each have a different "A".  Thus, two people (1 and 2) can see the same thing, "X", but come to competing conclusions ("B1 and B2"), because their "A" is ultimately different (A1 and A2).

I did not know anything about the "Strong Programme" methodology before reading this article, but Kochan makes it into an accessible topic by offering brief explanations and by returning to the main text critiqued by TL, a book written by David Bloor.  Kochan's critique of TL also returns to Bloor's work, which used the electron-charge debate between Milliken and Ehrenhaft to explain the Strong Programme method.  Kochan's critique starts by identifying where he thinks TL misunderstand the Strong Programme as outlined by Bloor. In a bizarre twist (IMHO), TL's misunderstanding of Bloor's text is highlighted, in a Freudian slip, where Tosh omits a key set of scare quotes in his citation. For Kochan, this indicates that TL believe Bloor is a scientific realist, which is a clear contradiction of Strong Programme assumptions (relativism).

The section of the essay that I find most interesting comes after Kochan's critique of TL (unconscious) scientific realism, where he examines the contrastive approach itself. Kochan examines TL's approach to the contrastive explanation and discovers a methodological "short cut". Apparently, TL structure a contrastive argument that is really a conjunctive statement: Why did A choose P rather than Q? Because A believes P and not Q. In other words, his explanation actually avoids contrastive format by using a conjunction: meaning, he should have answered "A believes P rather than Q, because A rather than Q". This is particularly interesting because, as Kochan points out, you don't really need to use a contrastive explanation in order to achieve the same point. As I understand it, your argument can demonstrate the same goal by using a conjunctive structure instead of a contrastive one (ironically said using a contrast).

To me, this means that, if we return to our original information request (modified per above), "Why choose P rather than any other item in A (e.g. "Q")?", we can say "because P and not Q", instead of (quoting Kochan) "P simpliciter".  This returns to the earlier description of the contrastive space: we can explain why a scientist believes P rather than Q by explaining why P and why he does not believe Q, rather than explaining every single possibility in the contrastive space (A). Of course, this only works if your goal is to explain P and not Q. For instance, why did Milliken conclude that the negative charge he discovered applied to the electron and not the subelectron? This way, you do not have to entertain all of the other possible particles or explanations that could have won Milliken over.

Kochan's methodological argument is a fascinating one, and it works particularly well when examining the case made by different sides in a controversy. 

16 comments:

采瑩采瑩 said...

you have a good taste!............................................................

batesda said...

愛情不是慈善事業,不能隨便施捨。............................................................

張孟勳 said...

人是受想像力所支配的。........................................

雲亨 said...

I guess I will need a lot..................................................

林志宏 said...

河水永遠是相同的,可是每一剎那又都是新的。......................................................................

亦妮亦妮 said...

卡爾.桑得柏:「除非先有夢,否則一切皆不成。」共勉!.................................................................                           

育財育財育財 said...

人不能像動物一樣活著,而應該追求知識和美德............................................................

張怡 said...

走過路過~不能錯過~哈哈............................................................

蕙春蕙春 said...

Poverty is stranger to industry.............................................................

盈廖生家秀蔡 said...

謝謝格主的分享..................................................................

萱祥 said...

相逢即是有緣~~留個言問候一聲,祝您平安順利............................................................

崔佐安崔佐安 said...

人必須心懷希望,才會活的快樂,日子才過得充實,有意義,有朝氣,有信心。............................................................

楊儀卉 said...

人生像一杯茶,若一飲而盡,會提早見到杯底..................................................

林彥以林彥以 said...

人生之中,比冒險更危險的一件事:不去冒險。..................................................

陳曉薇陳曉薇 said...

Learning makes a good man better and ill man worse.............................................................

瓊夏富 said...

More haste, less speed.............................................................