Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T12:19:18.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On Some Autonomy Arguments in Social Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Thomas Nickles
Thomas Nickles*
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

My aim in this necessarily compact paper is to sketch a philosophical defense of the kind of position assumed by the later Kroeber, when he wrote:

… That which is specifically characteristic and distinctively significant of phenomena of a level [of organization] is intelligible only in terms of the other phenomena, qualities, or regularities of that same level. The most characteristic qualities or phenomena are never explained by what we know of another level….

This does not mean that a new entity is hypostasized [sic] as the unique, substance of each level. Life, mind, society, and culture are not outside matter and energy, not outside space and time…. They are different organizations of matter and energy, if one will, which physicists and chemists cannot, in virtue of their physical and chemical methods, deal with fruitfully….

Type
Part I. Philosophy of Social Science
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1976 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1976 , 1976 , pp. 12 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Causey, Robert. “Uniform Microreductions.” Syrithese 25. (1972): 176-218.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. “A Review of B. F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior.” Language 35 (1959): 26-58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. “Causal Relations.” Journal of Philosophy LXIV (1967): 691-703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Donald. “Mental Events.” In Experience and Theory. Edited by Foster, L. and Swanson, J. W.. Amherst, Mass.: Univ. of Massachusetts Press, 1970. Pages 79-101.Google Scholar
Durkheim, Emile. The Rules of, the Sociological Method. New York: Free Press, 1964] First published in 1895.Google Scholar
Goody, Jack. “A Comparative Approach to Incest and Adultery“ British Journal of Sociology 7 (1956): 286-305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, David. “The Superorganic: Science or Metaphysics?” American Anthropologist 67 (1965): 958-76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeber, Alfred. “The Eighteen Professions.” American Anthropologist 17 (1915): 283-89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeber, Alfred. “The Superorganic.” American Anthropologist 19 (1917): 163-213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroeber, Alfred. The Nature of Culture. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1962.Google Scholar
Needham, Rodney. “Remarks on the Analysis of Kinship and Marriage.” In Rethinking Kinship and Marriage. Edited by Needham, R.. London: Tavistock Publications, 1971. Pages 1-3.Google Scholar
Nickles, Thomas. “Davidson on Explanation.” Philosophical Studies, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Nickles, Thomas. “On the Independence of Singular Causal Explanation in Social Science: Archaeology.” Philosophy of the Social Sciences, September 1976.Google Scholar
Radcliffe-Brown, A. R. “White's View of a Science of Culture.” American Anthropologist 51 (1949): 503-12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, Dudley, “Scientific Theories and Their Domains.” In The Structure of Scientific Theories. Edited by Suppe, Frederick. Urbana, III.: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1974. Pages 518-65.Google Scholar