International Master’s program Transformation in the South Caucasus

Course Title: / Philosophy of Social Science
socialuri mecnierebis filosofia
Course Code:
Course Status: / TSU Faculty of Social and Political Studies, Center for Social Sciences.
Required course for the Interdisciplinary English-language masters program Transformation in the South Caucasus
Duration: / One Semester
ECTS: / ECTS – 5; Contact hours – 30; Hours for independent work - 95
Lecturer: / Tamar Tskhadadze, Institute of Philosophy. E-mail: and
Gordana Velickovska, Guest Professor, CSS. E-mail:
Course Objectives: / The course is intended to introduce students to central concepts and trends of the philosophy of the social science; to ontological, epistemological and methodological issues connected with social sciences; to acquaint students with alternative models of scientific explanation and their application in social sciences, the debates over explanation vs. understanding, causality vs. intentionality, structure vs. subject, objectivity vs. engagement, etc.
Prerequisites: / No prerequisites are required for this course.
Course Format: / The course will heavily rely on classroom discussions and students’ presentations, with the minimal number of monologue lectures – one-hour introductory lecture for each broad topic.
Course Content: /

Session 1. Introduction to the Course

Introduction of the course syllabus; discussion of some technical matters.
General overview of various paradigms and controversies in the philosophy of social science. Key logical and philosophical concepts. Themes from epistemology and philosophy of natural science.
1. Empiricism and Positivism. Causal Explanation in the Social Science(sessions2-4)
Session2. Empiricism and Positivism; observational/theoretical dichotomy; deductive-nomological model of scientific explanation.
  1. Hempel, Carl G., “The Function of General Laws in History” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 43-54
  2. Hempel, C. G and Oppenheim, Paul, “The Deductive-Nomological Model of Scientific Explanation” // Scientific Enquiries. Readings in the Philosophy of Science, ed. by Robert Klee (NY and Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press), pp. 163-180
Session3. Causal explanation; the concepts of cause and effect; how- versus why-questions.
Little, Daniel, “2. Causal Analyses” // Daniel Little,Varieties of Social Explanation (Westview Press, Boulder, Co., 1991), pp. 13-38
Session4. Challenges to the causal-explanatory model in the social science; the post-positivist criticism of the positivist model of science and the observational/theoretical dichotomy.
  1. Hayek, F. A., “The Theory of Complex Phenomena” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 55-70
  2. Quine, W. V., “Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, “Posits and Reality” // Scientific Enquiries. Readings in the Philosophy of Science, ed. by Robert Klee (NY and Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press), pp. 72-82
Recommended and background reading for sessions2-4:
  1. Trigg, Roger, “1. The Nature of Science” // Roger Trigg, Understanding Social Science. A Philosophical Introduction to the Social Science (Blackwell Publishers, 1985, 2001), pp. 1-22
  2. Suppe, Frederick, “The Positivist Model of Scientific Theories” // Scientific Enquiries. Readings in the Philosophy of Science, ed. by Robert Klee (NY and Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press), pp. 16-24
  3. Nagel, Ernest, “Methodological Problems of the Social Sciences” // Ernest Nagel, The Structure of Science (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1971), pp 447-485.
  4. Rosenberg, Alexander, “The Rise of Logical Positivism” //Scientific Enquiries. Readings in the Philosophy of Science, ed. by Robert Klee (NY and Oxford, OxfordUniversity Press), pp. 10-15
  5. Popper, Karl, “1. Science: Conjectures and Refutations (i, ii)” // Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutations (London: Routledge, 1965, 1989), pp. 33-39
  6. Kuhn, Thomas, “Introduction: A Role for History” // Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1962, 1996), pp. 1-9
  7. Feyerabend, Paul, Against Method, Outline of an Anarchist Theory of Knowledge (Verso, 1975, 1993), pp. 23-25, 165-169
  8. Brian Fay, “General Laws and Explaining Human Behavior” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 91-110
  9. Blackman, Tim, “Complexity Theory” // Understanding Contemporary Society. Theories of the Present, ed. by Gary Browning, Abigail Halcli, Frank Webster (SAGE Publications, 2000), pp. 139-151
  10. McIntyre, Lee C., “Complexity and Social Scientific Laws” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 131-144
  11. Kincaid, Harold, “Defending Laws in the Social Sciences” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 111-131
2. Understanding and Interpretation (sessions5-6)
Session5. Understanding versus explanation; theories of interpretation; the idea of hermeneutical method.
  1. Taylor, Charles, “Interpretation and the Sciences of Man” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 181-212
Session6. Interpretation and agency; primacy of culture.
  1. Geertz, Clifford, “Thick Description: Toward an Interpretive Theory of Culture” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 213-232
Recommended and background reading for sessions5-6:
  1. Little, Daniel, “4. Interpretation Theory” // DanielLittle,Varieties of Social Explanation (Westview Press, 1991), pp. 68-87
  2. Stephensen, Susan, “Narrative” // Understanding Contemporary Society. Theories of the Present, ed. by Gary Browning, Abigail Halcli, Frank Webster (SAGE Publications, 2000), pp. 112-125
  3. Trigg, Roger, “4. Understanding Other Societies” // Roger Trigg, Understanding Social Science. A Philosophical Introduction to the Social Science (Blackwell Publishers, 1985, 2001), pp. 64-88
  4. Gadamer, Hans-Georg, Truth and Method (Sheed and Ward, 1975), pp. 258-274
  5. Habermas, Jurgen, “The Hermeneutic Claim to Universality” // Hermeneutics as Method, Philosophy and Critique, ed. by Josef Bleicher (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1980), pp. 181-211.
3. Rationality; Rational Choice Explanation (sessions7-8)
Session7. Rational-choice explanation; decision theory, game theory.
  1. Elster, John, “The Nature and Scope o Rational-Choice Explanation” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 311-322
  2. Little, Daniel, “3. Rational Choice Theory” // DanielLittle, Varieties of Social Explanation (Westview Press, Boulder, Co., 1991), pp. 39-58
Session8. Collective action theory; criticisms of rational-choice theory;
  1. Lukes, Steven, “Some Problems about Rationality” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 285-298
  2. Little, Daniel, “3. Rational Choice Theory” // DanielLittle, Varieties of Social Explanation (Westview Press, Boulder, Co., 1991), pp. 59-66
Recommended and background reading for sessions7-8:
  1. Davidson, Donald, “Actions, Reasons, and Causes” // Donald Davidson, Essays on Actions and Events (Clarendon Press, 1980, 2001), pp. 3-20
  2. Dagfinn Follesdal, “The Status of Rationality Assumptions in Interpretation and in the Explanation of Action” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 299-310
  3. Scott, John, “Rational Choice Theory” // Understanding Contemporary Society. Theories of the Present, ed. by Gary Browning, Abigail Halcli, Frank Webster (SAGE Publications, 2000), pp. 126-138.
  4. Little, Daniel, “7.Economic Anthropology” // DanielLittle, Varieties of Social Explanation (Westview Press, 1991), pp. 136-159
  5. Trigg, Roger, “7. Economics and Society” // Roger Trigg, Understanding Social Science. A Philosophical Introduction to the Social Science (Blackwell Publishers, 1985, 2001), pp. 132-154
4. Functional and Structural Explanation (sessions 9-10)
Session9. Function and cause; functional explanation; functionalism in the social science.
  1. Little, Daniel, “5. Functional and Structural Explanation. Functionalism” // DanielLittle, Varieties of Social Explanation (Westview Press, 1991), pp. 91-101
  2. Elster, Jon, “Functional Explanation: In Social Science” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 403-414
Session10. Structuralism; structure and subjectivity.
  1. Little, Daniel, “5. Functional and Structural Explanation. Structuralism” // DanielLittle, Varieties of Social Explanation (Westview Press, 1991), pp. 102-112
  2. Giddens, Anthony, “Structuralism, Post-Structuralism and the Production of Culture” // Social Theory Today, ed. by Anthony Giddens and Jonathan Turner (Stanford University Press, 1987), pp. 195-223
Recommended and background reading for sessions 9-10:
  1. Hempel, Carl G., “The Logic of Functional Analysis” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 349-376
  2. Dore, R. P., “Function and Cause” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 377-390
  3. Cohen, G. A., “Functional Explanation: In Marxism” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 391-402
  4. Levi-Strauss, Claude, “Structural Analysis in Linguistics and Anthropology” // Claude Levi-Strauss, Structural Anthropology (Basic Books, 1963, 1974), pp. 31-55
  5. Giddens, Antony, “2. Agency, Structure” // Antony Giddens, Central Problems in Social Theory. Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis (University of California Press, 1979), pp. 49-95
  6. Giddens, Antony, “1. Structuralism and the Theory of the Subject” // Antony Giddens, Central Problems in Social Theory. Action, Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis (University of California Press, 1979), pp. 9-48
5. Objectivity of Science; Value-Neutrality in Question (sessions11-13)
Session11. The idea of objectivity; the objectivity of natural versus social sciences.
Weber, Max, “ ‘Objectivity’ in Social Science and Social Policy” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 535-546
Session12. Critical tradition; social science as critique and as emancipatory practice.
Habermas, Jurgen, “Appendix: Knowledge and Human Interests. A general Perspective” // Jurgen Habermas,Knowledge and Human Interests (Beacon Pres, 1972), pp. 301-317
Session13. Feminist critique of scientific objectivity.
  1. Alison Wylie, “Reasoning about Ourselves: Feminist Methodology in the Social Sciences” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 611-624
  2. Linda Alcoff, “The Problem of Speaking for Others” // Cultural Critique, No 20, 1991-92, pp. 5-32
Recommended and background reading for sessions 11-13:
  1. Nagel, Ernest, “Value Oriented Bias of Social Inquiry” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 571-584
  2. Taylor, Charles, “Neutrality in Political Science” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 547-570
  3. Trigg, Roger, “2. Objectivity and the Sociology of Knowledge”, “6. Facts and Values” // Roger Trigg, Understanding Social Science. A Philosophical Introduction to the Social Science (Blackwell Publishers, 1985, 2001), pp. 23-43, 112-131
  4. Little, Daniel, “6. Materialism”, “10. Relativism” // DanielLittle, Varieties of Social Explanation (Westview Press, 1991), pp. pp. 91-113, 202-221
  5. Nancy Hartsock, “The Feminist Standpoint: Developing the Ground for a Specifically Feminist Historical Materialism” // Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives, ed. by Carole R. McCann and Seung-Kyung Kim (Routledge, 2003), pp. 292-307
  6. Donna Haraway, “Situated Knowledge: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective” // Feminist Theory Reader: Local and Global Perspectives, ed. by Carole R. McCann and Seung-Kyung Kim (Routledge, 2003), pp. 391-403
  7. Sandra Harding, “Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is Strong Objectivity” // Feminist Theory, A philosophical Anthology, ed. by Ann E. Cudd and Robin O. Andreasen (Blackwell Publishing, 2004), pp. 218-236
  8. Helen Longino, “Can There Be a Feminist Science?” // Feminist Theory, A philosophical Anthology, ed. by Ann E. Cudd and Robin O. Andreasen (Blackwell Publishing, 2004), pp. 210-217
6. Controversies about Methodological Individualism (sessions 14)
Session 14. Individuals and social regularities; the idea of supervenience.
  1. Little, Daniel, “9. Methodological Individualism” // DanielLittle, Varieties of Social Explanation (Westview Press, 1991), pp. 183-201
  2. Durkheim, Emile, “Social Facts” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 433-440
Recommended and background reading for session 14:
  1. Lukes, Steven, “Methodological Individualism Reconsidered” // Readingsin the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 451-458
  2. Miller, Richard W., “Methodological Individualism and Social Explanation” // Readings in the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 459-478
  3. Trigg, Roger, “3. Individuals and Society” // Roger Trigg, Understanding Social Science. A Philosophical Introduction to the Social Science (Blackwell Publishers, 1985, 2001), pp. 44-63
Session 15. Concluding Discussion.
Fay, Brian and Moon, J. Donald, “What Would an Adequate Philosophy of Science Look Like?” // Readingsin the Philosophy of Social Science, ed. by Michael Martin and Lee C. McIntyre (The MIT Press, 1994), pp. 21-35
Assessment: / The assessment will be based on the fulfillments of the following course requirements:
1. Participation in classroom discussions: to fulfillthis requirement, the student shall be actively engaged in the classroom discussion and demonstrate having read all reading assignments required for the class (15%)
2. Presentationson assigned readings:each student will have anoccasionto present an assigned reading. Students are expectedtosummarize essential aspects of the problem addressed, solutions to it proposed, and arguments adduced in the text. Students are encouraged to use presentation tools like PowerPoint, flipchart, etc. (15%)
3. Midterm Examination:by the end of the week 8, the instructor will give several (5 to 10) questions on the covered materialto the students. Students shall turn in written answers to the questions within one week (25%)
4. Final examination part 1 (take home):a short (up to 1500) on a topic previously agreed with the instructor (20%)
5. Final examination part 2 (sit-in): on the final exam day, students shall answer in writing several (up to 5) questions set by the instructor (20%)
6. Attendance (5%)
Viva: in case the student misses passing/higher grade by insignificant number of points (10/5 respectively), the student can sit an oral examination on the topics of the midterm and final exams.
Attendace / 5%
Participation in discussions: / 15%
Presentation on assigned reading: / 15%
Midterm examination (take home): / 25%
Final examination part 1 (essay): / 20%
Final examination part 2 (sit-in): / 20%
Viva (oral): / 10% - pass, 5% - higher grade
Required Readings: / There is no standard textbook for this course. All required readings are listed above in the relevant sections.
Additional Resources:
Attendance:
Submission of assignments: / All recommended and background readings are listed above in the relevant sections.
Students are expected to attend all lectures.
In order to ensure fairness and comparability between students, to spread the workload and ensure consistent feedback, considerable importance is attached to the submission of course work on time. An extension to the deadlines will normally be considered only in the case of illness, or severe domestic upheaval. Request for an extension must be made to the Course Professor, in advance of the deadline. Otherwise in the interest of fairness, work handed in late will be penalized by an automatic deduction of 10%.
Learning Outcomes: / In case of successfulaccomplishment ofthe course, the student shallhave command of key concepts of the philosophy of science, be acquainted with dominant trends and controversies in the philosophy of the social science, have acquired skills of critical reading and understanding philosophical arguments and of using philosophical concepts and argumentative strategies for analyzing various problems and standpoints.

1