Compare and Contrast Positivism and Interpretivism

Comp atomic number 18 and Contrast Positivism and InterpretivismPositivism is a theoretical and methodological approach in contemporary criminology. Positivists believe that human behavior is wrought by biological, psychological or social factors and forces. These factors and forces are called individual pathology which deter the decision-making and control ability of an individual and results in behavioral problems (White Haines, 2003). To extend to legal definition, execration is defined as individual pathology to obey law and to conform to moral consensus of the society. Positivism approach in criminology examines the trait distinctions between offenders, rather than on the culpable acts as the focus of analysis. Also, positivity determines how these diversitys predispose a person towards criminality (White Haines, 2003). Positivists believed that these traits observed stomach be diagnosed and treated by dealing with and removing the factors and forces that author the of fend behavior to occur.In a confident(p) view of the world, cognition was seen as the flair to get at truth, to understand the world well abundant so that we might herald and control it. The world and the universe were deterministic they operated by laws of ca exercise and effect that we could discern if we applied the unique approach of the scientific method. apprehension was largely a mechanistic or mechanical affair. We use deductive abstract thought to postulate theories that we can test. Based on the results of our studies, we whitethorn collect that our system doesnt fit the facts well and so we need to revise our theory to better predict verity. The plus believed in empiricism the idea that observation and measure was the midpoint of the scientific endeavor. The key approach of the scientific method is the experiment, the attempt to discern inborn laws through direct manipulation and observation.Paradigm of social research playact paradigm by following the ide a of Thomas Kuhn who is the first turn overer of paradigm that was showed in the book named structure of scientific revolutionsin 1962. In social attainment has two important paradigm that used for research society and event which happen in social that are advantageousness and interpretivismCritical Positivism Post-PositivismLets resume our very brief discussion of ism of perception with a simple distinction between epistemology and methodology. The term epistemology comes from the Greek word epistm, their term for knowledge. In simple terms, epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge or of how we come to know. methodology is likewise concerned with how we come to know, but is much more practical in nature. methodological analysis is focused on the specific ways the methods that we can use to try to understand our world better. Epistemology and methodology are intimately related the former involves the philosophy of how we come to know the world and the latter involves t he practice.When most population in our society suppose close acquirement, they think about some guy in a white lab coat employmenting at a lab bench mixing up chemicals. They think of experience as boring, cut-and-dry, and they think of the scientist as narrow-minded and esoteric (the ultimate nerd think of the humorous but nonetheless mad scientist in the Back to the Future movies, for instance). A dope of our stereotypes about science come from a period where science was dominated by a particular philosophy positivism that tended to support some of these views. Here, I want to suggest (no matter what the movie industry may think) that science has moved on in its thinking into an era of post-positivism where m each of those stereotypes of the scientist no extended hold up.Lets begin by considering what positivism is. In its broadest sense, positivism is a rejection of metaphysics (I leave it you to look up that term if youre not familiar with it). It is a bureau that holds that the polish of knowledge is simply to describe the phenomena that we experience. The purpose of science is simply to stick to what we can observe and measure. Knowledge of anything beyond that, a positivist would hold, is impossible. When I think of positivism (and the related philosophy of logical positivism) I think of the behaviorists in mid-20th Century psychology. These were the mythical rat runners who believed that psychology could only study what could be directly observed and measured. Since we cant directly observe emotions, thoughts, and so forth (although we may be able to measure some of the physical and physiological accompaniments), these were not real topics for a scientific psychology. B.F. Skinner pleadd that psychology needed to focalise only on the positive and negative reinforcers of behavior in order to predict how spate will behave everything else in between (like what the person is thinking) is inapplicable because it cant be measured.In a po sitivist view of the world, science was seen as the way to get at truth, to understand the world well enough so that we might predict and control it. The world and the universe were deterministic they operated by laws of cause and effect that we could discern if we applied the unique approach of the scientific method. Science was largely a mechanistic or mechanical affair. We use deductive agenting to postulate theories that we can test. Based on the results of our studies, we may learn that our theory doesnt fit the facts well and so we need to revise our theory to better predict reality. The positivist believed in empiricism the idea that observation and measurement was the core of the scientific endeavor. The key approach of the scientific method is the experiment, the attempt to discern natural laws through direct manipulation and observation.OK, I am exaggerating the positivist position (although you may be amazed at how close to this some of them actually came) in order to make a point. Things have changed in our views of science since the middle part of the 20th century. Probably the most important has been our shift away from positivism into what we term post-positivism. By post-positivism, I dont mean a nice adjustment to or revision of the positivist position post-positivism is a wholesale rejection of the central tenets of positivism. A post-positivist might begin by recognizing that the way scientists think and work and the way we think in our everyday behavior are not distinctly different. scientific reasoning and common sense reasoning are basically the same process. There is no difference in kind between the two, only a difference in degree. Scientists, for example, follow specific procedures to assure that observations are verifiable, accurate and consistent. In everyday reasoning, we dont always proceed so carefully (although, if you think about it, when the stakes are high, even in everyday life we become much more cautious about measu rement. Think of the way most answerable parents keep continuous watch over their infants, noticing details that non-parents would neer detect).One of the most common forms of post-positivism is a philosophy called critical realism. A critical realist believes that there is a reality independent of our thinking about it that science can study. (This is in contrast with a subjectivist who would hold that there is no external reality were to each one making this all up). Positivists were also realists. The difference is that the post-positivist critical realist recognizes that all observation is fallible and has error and that all theory is revisable. In other(a) words, the critical realist is critical of our ability to know reality with certainty. Where the positivist believed that the goal of science was to uncover the truth, the post-positivist critical realist believes that the goal of science is to hold steadfastly to the goal of getting it right about reality, even though we can never come through that goal Because all measurement is fallible, the post-positivist emphasizes the importance of triplex measures and observations, each of which may possess different types of error, and the need to use triangulation across these multiple errorful sources to try to get a better bead on whats happening in reality. The post-positivist also believes that all observations are theory-laden and that scientists (and everyone else, for that matter) are inherently biased by their cultural experiences, world views, and so on. This is not cause to give up in despair, however. upright because I have my world view based on my experiences and you have yours doesnt mean that we cant try for to translate from each others experiences or understand each other. That is, post-positivism rejects the relativist idea of the incommensurability of different perspectives, the idea that we can never understand each other because we come from different experiences and cultures. Mo st post-positivists are drawivists who believe that we each construct our view of the world based on our perceptions of it. Because perception and observation is fallible, our constructions must be imperfect. So what is meant by objectiveness in a post-positivist world? Positivists believed that objectivity was a characteristic that resided in the individual scientist. Scientists are responsible for putting aside their biases and beliefs and seeing the world as it really is. Post-positivists reject the idea that any individual can see the world perfectly as it really is. We are all biased and all of our observations are affected (theory-laden). Our best hope for achieving objectivity is to triangulate across multiple fallible perspectives Thus, objectivity is not the characteristic of an individual, it is inherently a social phenomenon. It is what multiple individuals are trying to achieve when they criticize each others work. We never achieve objectivity perfectly, but we can app roach it. The best way for us to improve the objectivity of what we do is to do it within the context of a broader contentious community of truth-seekers (including other scientists) who criticize each others work. The theories that survive such intense scrutiny are a objet dart like the species that survive in the evolutionary struggle. (This is sometimes called the natural selection theory of knowledge and holds that ideas have survival value and that knowledge evolves through a process of variation, selection and retention). They have adaptive value and are probably as close as our species can come to being objective and discernment reality.Clearly, all of this stuff is not for the faint-of-heart. Ive seen many a graduate student get lost in the maze of philosophical assumptions that contemporary philosophers of science argue about. And dont think that I believe this is not important stuff. But, in the end, I tend to turn pragmatist on these matters. Philosophers have been deba ting these issues for thousands of years and there is every reason to believe that they will continue to debate them for thousands of years more. Those of us who are practicing scientists should check in on this debate from time to time (perhaps every blow years or so would be about right). We should think about the assumptions we make about the world when we conduct research. But in the meantime, we cant carry for the philosophers to settle the matter. After all, we do have our own work to doPositivism Post-PositivismLets start our very brief discussion of philosophy of science with a simple distinction between epistemology and methodology. The term epistemology comes from the Greek word epistm, their term for knowledge. In simple terms, epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge or of how we come to know. Methodology is also concerned with how we come to know, but is much more practical in nature. Methodology is focused on the specific ways the methods that we can use to try to understand our world better. Epistemology and methodology are intimately related the former involves the philosophy of how we come to know the world and the latter involves the practice.When most people in our society think about science, they think about some guy in a white lab coat working at a lab bench mixing up chemicals. They think of science as boring, cut-and-dry, and they think of the scientist as narrow-minded and esoteric (the ultimate nerd think of the humorous but nonetheless mad scientist in the Back to the Future movies, for instance). A lot of our stereotypes about science come from a period where science was dominated by a particular philosophy positivism that tended to support some of these views. Here, I want to suggest (no matter what the movie industry may think) that science has moved on in its thinking into an era of post-positivism where many of those stereotypes of the scientist no longer hold up.Lets begin by considering what positivism is. In its br oadest sense, positivism is a rejection of metaphysics (I leave it you to look up that term if youre not familiar with it). It is a position that holds that the goal of knowledge is simply to describe the phenomena that we experience. The purpose of science is simply to stick to what we can observe and measure. Knowledge of anything beyond that, a positivist would hold, is impossible. When I think of positivism (and the related philosophy of logical positivism) I think of the behaviorists in mid-20th Century psychology. These were the mythical rat runners who believed that psychology could only study what could be directly observed and measured. Since we cant directly observe emotions, thoughts, etc. (although we may be able to measure some of the physical and physiological accompaniments), these were not legitimate topics for a scientific psychology. B.F. Skinner argued that psychology needed to concentrate only on the positive and negative reinforcers of behavior in order to predi ct how people will behave everything else in between (like what the person is thinking) is irrelevant because it cant be measured.In a positivist view of the world, science was seen as the way to get at truth, to understand the world well enough so that we might predict and control it. The world and the universe were deterministic they operated by laws of cause and effect that we could discern if we applied the unique approach of the scientific method. Science was largely a mechanistic or mechanical affair. We use deductive reasoning to postulate theories that we can test. Based on the results of our studies, we may learn that our theory doesnt fit the facts well and so we need to revise our theory to better predict reality. The positivist believed in empiricism the idea that observation and measurement was the core of the scientific endeavor. The key approach of the scientific method is the experiment, the attempt to discern natural laws through direct manipulation and observati on.OK, I am exaggerating the positivist position (although you may be amazed at how close to this some of them actually came) in order to make a point. Things have changed in our views of science since the middle part of the 20th century. Probably the most important has been our shift away from positivism into what we term post-positivism. By post-positivism, I dont mean a slight adjustment to or revision of the positivist position post-positivism is a wholesale rejection of the central tenets of positivism. A post-positivist might begin by recognizing that the way scientists think and work and the way we think in our everyday life are not distinctly different. Scientific reasoning and common sense reasoning are essentially the same process. There is no difference in kind between the two, only a difference in degree. Scientists, for example, follow specific procedures to assure that observations are verifiable, accurate and consistent. In everyday reasoning, we dont always proceed so carefully (although, if you think about it, when the stakes are high, even in everyday life we become much more cautious about measurement. Think of the way most responsible parents keep continuous watch over their infants, noticing details that non-parents would never detect).One of the most common forms of post-positivism is a philosophy called critical realism. A critical realist believes that there is a reality independent of our thinking about it that science can study. (This is in contrast with a subjectivist who would hold that there is no external reality were each making this all up). Positivists were also realists. The difference is that the post-positivist critical realist recognizes that all observation is fallible and has error and that all theory is revisable. In other words, the critical realist is critical of our ability to know reality with certainty. Where the positivist believed that the goal of science was to uncover the truth, the post-positivist critical re alist believes that the goal of science is to hold steadfastly to the goal of getting it right about reality, even though we can never achieve that goal Because all measurement is fallible, the post-positivist emphasizes the importance of multiple measures and observations, each of which may possess different types of error, and the need to use triangulation across these multiple errorful sources to try to get a better bead on whats happening in reality. The post-positivist also believes that all observations are theory-laden and that scientists (and everyone else, for that matter) are inherently biased by their cultural experiences, world views, and so on. This is not cause to give up in despair, however. Just because I have my world view based on my experiences and you have yours doesnt mean that we cant hope to translate from each others experiences or understand each other. That is, post-positivism rejects the relativist idea of the incommensurability of