Search

This second and concluding pan of the paper deals with a third problem area; the relationship between values and explanation. It is discussed by examining Myrdal's distinctions between valuations and value premises and between theoretical and practical research; Stretton's conception of the role of the `valuing skill' in all kinds of socio- historical research; and Maclntyre's arguments concerning categories and accounts that combine either evaluation and description or evaluation and explanation. Like the first part of the paper, it is illustrated by studies in the history and sociology of revolutions. Again, the main aim is methodological clarification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on the paper on bootstrapped induction published in the earlier issue that was a part of an extended body of work in which the problem of reference from a sociological point of view was considered. The great sociological importance of the problem of reference will be apparent. If the proper use of a term can be unproblematically fixed in advance by its meaning, or by secure reasoning from its previous usage, or indeed, by anything at all, so that what it refers to is completely and immutably specified, then verbal rules have set implications, norms may govern and determine, values may command actions. A number of interesting alternative approaches are to be found in the sociology of knowledge and science, the context of much of my own work. There is no indication of why it should bear upon the question of the correctness of mechanism. Worse, there is no indication of what dehumanization and reduction consist in. And there is certainly no evidence offered of any connection between the use of mechanistic representations and the production of either of these outcomes.