建构主义集合论分析:本质主义社会科学的替代

IF 0.6 1区 哲学 Q4 ETHICS
J. Mahoney
{"title":"建构主义集合论分析:本质主义社会科学的替代","authors":"J. Mahoney","doi":"10.1177/00483931231178100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Psychological essentialism is a cognitive bias through which human beings conceive the entities around them as having inner essences and basic natures. Social scientists routinely generate flawed inferences because their methods require the truth of psychological essentialism. This article develops set-theoretic analysis as a scientific-constructivist approach that overcomes the bias of psychological essentialism. With this approach, the “sets” of set-theoretic analysis are mental phenomena that establish boundaries and identify similarities and differences among entities whose natural kind composition is not known. The approach is illustrated through a consideration of research on intelligence, race, and poverty in the United States.","PeriodicalId":46776,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of the Social Sciences","volume":"53 1","pages":"327 - 366"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Constructivist Set-Theoretic Analysis: An Alternative to Essentialist Social Science\",\"authors\":\"J. Mahoney\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00483931231178100\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Psychological essentialism is a cognitive bias through which human beings conceive the entities around them as having inner essences and basic natures. Social scientists routinely generate flawed inferences because their methods require the truth of psychological essentialism. This article develops set-theoretic analysis as a scientific-constructivist approach that overcomes the bias of psychological essentialism. With this approach, the “sets” of set-theoretic analysis are mental phenomena that establish boundaries and identify similarities and differences among entities whose natural kind composition is not known. The approach is illustrated through a consideration of research on intelligence, race, and poverty in the United States.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46776,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy of the Social Sciences\",\"volume\":\"53 1\",\"pages\":\"327 - 366\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy of the Social Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931231178100\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of the Social Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931231178100","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

心理本质主义是一种认知偏见,人类通过这种偏见将周围的实体视为具有内在本质和基本性质。社会科学家经常产生有缺陷的推论,因为他们的方法需要心理本质主义的真理。本文将集合论分析发展为一种克服心理本质主义偏见的科学建构主义方法。通过这种方法,集合论分析的“集合”是一种心理现象,它在自然种类组成未知的实体之间建立边界并识别相似性和差异性。通过对美国智力、种族和贫困问题的研究,说明了这种方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Constructivist Set-Theoretic Analysis: An Alternative to Essentialist Social Science
Psychological essentialism is a cognitive bias through which human beings conceive the entities around them as having inner essences and basic natures. Social scientists routinely generate flawed inferences because their methods require the truth of psychological essentialism. This article develops set-theoretic analysis as a scientific-constructivist approach that overcomes the bias of psychological essentialism. With this approach, the “sets” of set-theoretic analysis are mental phenomena that establish boundaries and identify similarities and differences among entities whose natural kind composition is not known. The approach is illustrated through a consideration of research on intelligence, race, and poverty in the United States.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: For more than four decades Philosophy of the Social Sciences has served as the international, interdisciplinary forum for current research, theory and debate on the philosophical foundations of the social services. Philosophy of the Social Sciences focuses on the central issues of the social sciences, including general methodology (explaining, theorizing, testing) the application of philosophy (especially individualism versus holism), the nature of rationality and the history of theories and concepts. Among the topics you''ll explore are: ethnomethodology, evolution, Marxism, phenomenology, postmodernism, rationality, relativism, scientific methods, and textual interpretations. Philosophy of the Social Sciences'' open editorial policy ensures that you''ll enjoy rigorous scholarship on topics viewed from many different-- and often conflicting-- schools of thought. No school, party or style of philosophy of the social sciences is favoured. Debate between schools is encouraged. Each issue presents submissions by distinguished scholars from a variety of fields, including: anthropology, communications, economics, history, linguistics, philosophy, psychology, and sociology. Each issue brings you in-depth discussions, symposia, literature surveys, translations, and review symposia of interest both to philosophyers concerned with the social sciences and to social scientists concerned with the philosophical foundations of their subjects.
×
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