77992 - Philosophy of Social Sciences (1) (LM)

Learning outcomes

The course aims at providing a deep knowledge of the major issues tackled in the contemporary epistemological debate on the social sciences. Core methodological and conceptual aspects of history, archaeology, anthropology, economics, psychology and - partly - medicine are addressed. Students will get familiar with relevant debates in contemporary philosophy of the social sciences, and shall be able to analyse and discuss key topics on the construction of scientific knowledge in such disciplines.

Course contents

Students will be introduced to some of the core topics in philosophy of the social sciences, and its most recent developments. After a critical introduction to "philosophy of the social sciences" as a field, the course will more specifically focus on: a) relations between the natural and the social sciences; b) individualism and collectivism in the philosophy of social sciences - with some examples from the empirical sciences; c) scientific objectivity, values, and standpoint theories; epistemic and non-epistemic virtues and views on scientific "objectivity" in current philosophy of social sciences. In the second part of the course some issues related to normativity and naturalism will be tackled with a specific focus on philosophy of health and philosophy of psychiatry, discussing definition and classification of mental disorders.

The course will be entirely delivered in English.

Students are required to take active part in the discussions and to interact in the analysis of a few compulsory papers to be read beforehand - which will be made available online.

 

Readings/Bibliography

Readings will all be made available online:

WEEK 1

Rosenberg, A., “A Field Guide to Recent Species of Naturalism”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 1996, 47, 1-29.

Salmon, M., “Philosophy of the Social Sciences”, in M. Salmon, J. Earman et al. (eds), Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, Prentice Hall, 1992, pp. 404-425.

Smith, D.L., “Naturalism”, in L. McIntyre and A. Rosenberg (eds.), The Routledge Companion of Philosophy of Social Sciences, Routledge, 2016, pp. 159-168.

Taylor, C., “Interpretation and the Sciences of Man”, in M. Martin and L. McIntyre (eds.), Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, The MIT Press, 1994, pp. 181-211.

WEEK 2

Hodgson, G.M., “Meanings of Methodological Individualism”, Journal of Economic Methodology, 2007, 14:2, 211–226.

Kincaid, H., “Open Empirical and Methodological Issues in the Individualism-Holism Debate”, Philosophy of Science, 2015, 82, 1127–1138.

P. Ylikoski, “Methodological Individualism”, in L. McIntyre and A. Rosenberg (eds.), The Routledge Companion of Philosophy of Social Sciences, Routledge, 2016, pp.135-146.

Zahle, J. and Kincaid, H., “Why Be a Methodological Individualist?”, Synthese, 2019, 196, 655-675.

WEEK 3

Carrier, M., “Values and Objectivity in Science: Value-Ladenness, Pluralism and the Epistemic Attitude”, Science & Education, 2013, 22, 2547–2568.

Douglas, H. “The Irreducible Complexity of Objectivity”, Synthese, 2004, 138, 453–473.

Longino, H. “Gender, Politics, and the Theoretical Virtues”, Synthese, 1995, 104: 383-397.

Rooney, P., “On Values in Science: Is the Epistemic/Non-Epistemic Distinction Useful?”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1992, Volume One: Contributed Papers, pp. 13-22.

WEEK 4

Boorse, C., “Health as a Theoretical Concept”, Philosophy of Science, 1977, Vol. 44, No. 4, 542-573.

Ereshefsky, M., “Defining ‘Health’ and ‘Disease’”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 2009, 40, 221–227.

Nordenfelt, L., “On the Relevance and Importance of the Notion of Disease”, TheoreticaI Medicine, 1993, 14: 15-26.

Tresker, S., “Theoretical and Clinical Disease and the Biostatistical Theory”, [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/13698486], 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2019.101249

WEEK 5

Faucher, L. and Goyer, S., “RDoC’s Special Kind of Reductionism and its Possible Impact on Clinical Psychiatry”, To appear in S. Johnson & K. Rommelfanger (eds.), Routledge Handbook of Neuroethics.

Hartner, D., and Theurer, K.L., “Psychiatry Should Not Seek Mechanisms of Disorder”, Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 2018, 38, No. 4, 189–204

Tabb, K., “Philosophy of Psychiatry after Diagnostic Kinds”, Synthese, 2019, 196, 2177–2195.

Weiskopf , D., “An Ideal Disorder? Autism as a Psychiatric Kind”, Philosophical Explorations, 2017, 20:2, 175-190.

 

Students who will not attend lectures are requested to read also:  

Philosophy of Social Science, A New Introduction, eds. N. Cartwright and E. Montuschi, OUP 2014, parts II; III; IV.

"Philosophical Issues in Psychiatry", eds. K. Kendler and J. Parnas, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008, pp. 19-98; pp. 327-385

 

 

Further suggested volumes are:

The Sage Handbook of the Philosophy of Social Sciences, eds. I.C. Jarvie and J. Zamora-Bonilla, Sage, 2011

Naturalism in the Philosophy of Health, ed. E. Giroux, Springer 2016

 

Teaching methods

The course will consist of lectures, which will either cover course contents or will consist in the reading and commenting of a text related to those contents. Students will be required to read some texts beforehand, to comment and discuss them in class.

Assessment methods

The exam will evaluate whether the student is familiar with the main topics dealt with in the course, and masters the fundamental notions needed to discuss merits and limits of the main current theories. The evaluation will take into account also the active participation during the course.

Students will have to write a short essay (min 2500, max 3000 words) in English on one of the topics addressed in course (references to be agreed upon with the Professor). The essay will be evaluated to establish whether the student is able to present and critically discuss the different theoretical persepctives examined in the course.

When students achieve an organic view of the issues addressed in lectures, demonstrating a mastery of the technical terminology and conceptual tools, and a keep knowledge of the texts and authors considered, they will be assessed with marks of excellence.

A positive assessment will be acknowledged to students who acquire an adequate, but not critical knowledge of the topics addressed, and use a correct, but not always precise language.

A mostly rote learning, the lack of adequate synthetic and/or analytic skills and of a specfic Language will lead to a fair evaluation.

Superficial knowledge of the course contents and/or inadequate use of technical langiage will lead to low grades.

Knowledge gaps, inappropriate or highly imprecise language, and lack of grasp of the critical points tackled in the course will lead to insufficient evaluation and failure

Teaching tools

Power-point slides, handouts and uploaded papers.

Office hours

See the website of Raffaella Campaner