180165 SE Philosophy of the Social Sciences (2021W)
Continuous assessment of course work
Labels
REMOTE
Registration/Deregistration
Note: The time of your registration within the registration period has no effect on the allocation of places (no first come, first served).
- Registration is open from Fr 10.09.2021 09:00 to Th 16.09.2021 10:00
- Registration is open from Fr 24.09.2021 09:00 to Th 30.09.2021 10:00
- Deregistration possible until Sa 23.10.2021 23:59
Details
max. 30 participants
Language: English
Lecturers
Classes (iCal) - next class is marked with N
Depending on the Covid-situation, the course will taught online or in person.
Tuesday
12.10.
15:00 - 16:30
Digital
Tuesday
19.10.
15:00 - 16:30
Digital
Tuesday
09.11.
15:00 - 16:30
Digital
Tuesday
16.11.
15:00 - 16:30
Digital
Tuesday
23.11.
15:00 - 16:30
Digital
Tuesday
30.11.
15:00 - 16:30
Digital
Tuesday
07.12.
15:00 - 16:30
Digital
Tuesday
14.12.
15:00 - 16:30
Digital
Tuesday
11.01.
15:00 - 16:30
Digital
Tuesday
18.01.
15:00 - 16:30
Digital
Tuesday
25.01.
15:00 - 16:30
Digital
Information
Aims, contents and method of the course
Introduction to the philosophy of the social sciences based on influential texts and authors. Participants will read these texts, formulate written questions, and discuss the texts and these questions during the seminar. A further goal is the ability to write a scientific contribution (of the length of a journal article).In order to familiarise yourself with the level and themes of the course, you could check out: Mark Risjord, PHILOSOPHY OF SOCIAL SCIENCE, Routledge, London, 2014.
Assessment and permitted materials
Evaluation of the participation in discussions (20% of the overall mark), of the prepared and uploaded questions (20%) as well as the essay (of about 20 pages, Font 12, Times New Roman) (60%)
Minimum requirements and assessment criteria
Regular attendance (not more than once without a doctor's note); punctual attendance; care (in reading the work of other and regarding one's own presentation); argumentative engagement with others' ideas; regular uploading of questions (at least 10 times) -- Independent essay on one of the topics of the course.The essay should discuss one of the questions raised in the seminar, and it should be based primarily on the literature discussed in class. It could be, e.g., a critique of one of the positions introduxzced, or an attempt to "decide" one of the debates covered in the seminar.The overall mark consists of three components:Mark for the essay: 60% i.e. 60 points
Mark for the questions/comments: 20% i.e. 20 points
Mark for participation in classroom discussion: 20% i.e. 20 pointsYour need at least 40 points to complete the course.
All components have to be delivered for there to be a final mark.Scale for the marks:
1: 85-100 points
2: 70-84 points
3: 55-69 points
4: 40-54 points
5: 0-39 points
Mark for the questions/comments: 20% i.e. 20 points
Mark for participation in classroom discussion: 20% i.e. 20 pointsYour need at least 40 points to complete the course.
All components have to be delivered for there to be a final mark.Scale for the marks:
1: 85-100 points
2: 70-84 points
3: 55-69 points
4: 40-54 points
5: 0-39 points
Examination topics
There is no exam
Reading list
1. Ontological Issues / Social Metaphysics -- Group Attitudes and Group Agency ILongino, H. (2014), “Individuals or Populations?”, in N. Cartwright and E. Montuschi (eds.), Philosophy of the Social Sciences: A New Introduction, Oxford: Oxford U.P., 102-1202. Ontological Issues / Social Metaphysics -- Group Attitudes and Group Agency IITollefsen, D. (2014), “Social Ontology”, in N. Cartwright and E. Montuschi (eds.), Philosophy of the Social Sciences: A New Introduction, Oxford: Oxford U.P., 85-1013. Methodological Individualism and Holism IList, C. and K. Spiekermann (2013), “Methodological Individualism and Holism in Political Science: A Reconciliation”, American Political Science Review 107: 629-6434. Methodological Individualism and Holism IIZahle, J. and H. Kincaid (2019), “Why be a Methodological Individualist?” Synthese 196: 655-6755. Mechanism and ExplanationHedström, P. and P. Ylikoski (2010), “Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences”, Annual Review of Sociology 36: 49-67.6. Functional ExplanationBigelow, John C.. Functionalism in social science, 1998, doi:10.4324/9780415249126-R008-1. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Taylor and Francis, https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/functionalism-in-social-science/v-1.Pettit, Ph. (1996), “Functional Explanation and Virtual Selection,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 47: 291-302.7. Laws and the Social SciencesJhun, J. S. (2018), “What’s the Point of Ceteris Paribus? Or, How to Understand Supply and Demand Curves”, Philosophy of Science 85: 271-2928. UnderstandingStueber, K. R. (2012), “Understanding Versus Explanation? How to Think about the Distinction between the Human and the Natural Sciences”, Inquiry 55: 17-32Collingwood, R. (1936), “Human Nature and Human History”, in P. Gardiner (ed.), The Philosophy of History, Oxford: Oxford UP, 1974, pp. 17-409. Understanding (and the Relativism-Question)Winch, P. (1964), “Understanding a Primitive Society”, American Philosophical Quarterly 4: 307-32410. Critical TheoryGeuss, R. (1981), The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt School, Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1981, 55-9511. Feminist and PerspectivesCrasnow, S. (2014), “Feminist Standpoint Theory”, in N. Cartwright and E. Montuschi (eds.), Philosophy of the Social Sciences: A New Introduction, Oxford: Oxford U.P., 145-161Wylie, A. (2014), “Community-Based Collaborative Archaeology”, in N. Cartwright and E. Montuschi (eds.), Philosophy of the Social Sciences: A New Introduction, Oxford: Oxford U.P., 68-8212. Value Judgements / ObjectivityAlexandrova, A. (2018), “Can the Science of Well-Being be Objective?”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 69: 421-445
Association in the course directory
Last modified: Th 23.03.2023 00:20