Creative Abduction, Factor Analysis, and the Causes of Liberal Democracy

C. Glymour
{"title":"Creative Abduction, Factor Analysis, and the Causes of Liberal Democracy","authors":"C. Glymour","doi":"10.1515/krt-2019-330102","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The ultimate focus of the current essay is on methods of \"creative abduction\" that have some guarantees as reliable guides to the truth, and those that do not. Emphasizing work by Richard Englehart using data from the World Values Survey, Gerhard Schurz has analyzed literature surrounding Samuel Huntington's well-known claims that civilization is divided into eight contending traditions, some of which resist \"modernization\" - democracy, civil rights, equality of rights of women and minorities, secularism. Schurz suggests an evolutionary model of modernization and identifies opposing social forces. In a later essay, citing Englehart's work as an example, Schurz identifies factor analysis as an example of \"creative abduction\". The theories of Englehart and his collaborators are reviewed again in the current essay. Published simulations and standard statistical desiderata for causal inference show the methods Englehart used, factor analysis in particular, are not guides to truth for the kind of data Schurz recognizes as common in political science. Recent work in statistics, philosophy and computer science that makes advances towards such methods is briefly reviewed","PeriodicalId":107351,"journal":{"name":"KRITERION – Journal of Philosophy","volume":"214 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"KRITERION – Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/krt-2019-330102","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Abstract The ultimate focus of the current essay is on methods of "creative abduction" that have some guarantees as reliable guides to the truth, and those that do not. Emphasizing work by Richard Englehart using data from the World Values Survey, Gerhard Schurz has analyzed literature surrounding Samuel Huntington's well-known claims that civilization is divided into eight contending traditions, some of which resist "modernization" - democracy, civil rights, equality of rights of women and minorities, secularism. Schurz suggests an evolutionary model of modernization and identifies opposing social forces. In a later essay, citing Englehart's work as an example, Schurz identifies factor analysis as an example of "creative abduction". The theories of Englehart and his collaborators are reviewed again in the current essay. Published simulations and standard statistical desiderata for causal inference show the methods Englehart used, factor analysis in particular, are not guides to truth for the kind of data Schurz recognizes as common in political science. Recent work in statistics, philosophy and computer science that makes advances towards such methods is briefly reviewed
创造性绑架、因素分析与自由民主的成因
当前文章的最终焦点是“创造性绑架”的方法,这些方法有一些保证作为可靠的真理指南,而那些没有。格哈德·舒尔茨强调了理查德·恩格尔哈特(Richard Englehart)使用《世界价值观调查》(World Values Survey)数据所做的工作,分析了围绕塞缪尔·亨廷顿(Samuel Huntington)的著名主张——文明被分为八种相互竞争的传统,其中一些抵制“现代化”——民主、公民权利、妇女和少数民族权利平等、世俗主义——的文献。舒尔茨提出了一个现代化的进化模型,并指出了对立的社会力量。在后来的一篇文章中,舒尔茨以恩格尔哈特的工作为例,将因素分析确定为“创造性绑架”的一个例子。本文再次回顾了恩格尔哈特及其合作者的理论。已发表的模拟和因果推理的标准统计数据表明,恩格尔哈特使用的方法,特别是因素分析,并不能指导舒尔茨认为在政治科学中常见的那种数据的真相。本文简要回顾了最近在统计学、哲学和计算机科学方面取得进展的方法
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信