Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T16:03:46.299Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deconstructing Methodological Falsificationism in International Relations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Roger D. Spegele
Roger D. Spegele*
Affiliation:
University of Nairobi
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The idea that international politics can be a theoretical science logically homeomorphic to theoretical physics finds its most perspicuous recent expression in a methodological falsificationist program for its realization. But the program is a syllabus of epistemological errors which, upon detailed examination, collapses into incoherence. This article gives particular attention to three aspects of the program: the principle of interdependent deduction, the falsifiability criterion and the critical testing policy. Despite the systematic and resolute efforts on the part of its adherents to fix a methodological grammar for international studies, the program of methodological falsificationism is revealed to be: essentially a complete failure. The main source of the difficulty is located in the failure to appreciate the role of metaphysics in the sciences which, contrary to the standard positivist-empiricist view, constitutes the driving force behind scientific discoveries. Since a monistic metaphysics, however, may be neither possible nor desirable for the social and political sciences, a deconstructive metaphysical program is recommended. The final conclusion that vastly increased attention needs to be given to ontological and metaphysical issues seems completely warranted.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 74 , Issue 1 , September 1980 , pp. 104 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achinstein, Peter (1968). Concepts of Science. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caspary, W. R. (1967). “Richardson's Model of Arms Races: Description, Critique, and an Alternative Model.” International Studies Quarterly 2: 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Derrida, Jacques (1967). De La Grammatologie. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques (1972). Marges De La Philosophie. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques (1978). Eperons: Les Styles de Nietzsche. Paris: Flammarion.Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre (1906). The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Translated by Wiener, Philip P.. New York: Atheneum, 1962.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul (1975). Against Method. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Grunbaum, Adolf (1976). “Ad Hoc Auxiliary Hypotheses and Falsificationism.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 27: 329–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haack, Susan (1975). “The Justification of Deduction.” Mind 85: 112–19.Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen (1968). Erkenntnis und Interesse. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harré, R. (1972). The Philosophies of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin (1969). Zur Sache Des Denkens. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. (1974). The Principles of Scientific Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hintikka, K. J. (1974). “Questions about Questions.” In Munitz, M. K. and Ungar, P. (eds.), Semantics and Philosophy. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Stanley (1977). “Review of Handbook of Political Science.” American Political Science Review 71: 1634–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollis, M. and Nell, E. J. (1975). Rational Economic Man. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollist, W. Ladd (1977). “An Analysis of Arms Processes in the United States and the Soviet Union.” International Studies Quarterly 21: 503–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, Morton A. (1969a). “The New Great Debate.” In Knorr, Klaus and Rosenau, James N. (eds.), Contending Approaches to International Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Morton A. (1969b). Macropolitics. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Morton A. (1971). On Historical and Political Knowing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas (1970; first published 1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970). “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, Alan E. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1974). “Popper on Demarcation and Induction.” In Schilpp, Paul A. (ed.), The Philosophy of Karl Popper. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (1678). “Letter to Conring.” In Philosophische Schriften, Vol. 2. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.Google Scholar
Lessnoff, M. (1973). The Structure of Social Science. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Levy, Marion Jr. (1969). “‘Does It Matter if He's Naked?’ Bawled the Child.” In Knorr, Klaus and Rosenau, James N. (eds.), Contending Approaches to International Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair (1973). “Ideology, Social Science and Revolution.” Comparative Politics 5: 321–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Musgrave, Alan E. (1974). “Logical versus Historical Theories of Confirmation.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25: 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Warren R. (1974). “Where Have all the Theories Gone?” World Politics 26: 155–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1957a). “The Aim of Science.” In Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1957b). The Poverty of Historicism. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1959; first published 1934). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1972). Objective Knowledge. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. (1974). The Philosophy of Karl Popper. Edited by Schilpp, Paul A.. La Salle, Ill.: Open Court.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1975). Mind, Language and Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Hilary (1978). Meaning and the Moral Sciences. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1953). “Two Dogmas of Empiricism.” In From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. (1969). Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Lewis Fry (1960). Arms and Insecurity. Pittsburgh: Boxwood Press.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Ronald (1968). “International Politics: The Past as Science.” International Studies Quarterly 12: 394–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rogowski, Ronald (1978). “Rationalist Theories of Politics: A Midterm Report.” World Politics 22: 296–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenau, J. N. (1971). The Scientific Study of Foreign Policy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Rummel, Rudolph J. (1975). Understanding Conflict and War, Vol. I. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce M. (1967). International Regions and the International System. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Russett, Bruce M. (1969). “The Young Science of International Politics.” World Politics 22: 87–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settle, T. W. (1968). “A Prolegomenon to Intellectually Honest Theology.” Philosophical Forum 1: 136–70.Google Scholar
Singer, J. D. and Jones, S. (1972). Beyond Conjecture in International Politics. Itasca, Ill.: Peacock.Google Scholar
Smoker, Paul (1964). “Fear in the Arms Race: A Mathematical Study.” Journal of Peace Research 1: 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szulc, Tad (1974). “How Kissinger Did It: Behind the Vietnam Ceasefire Agreement.” Foreign Policy 15: 21–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Urbach, Peter (1978). “Is Any of Popper's Arguments Against Historicism Valid?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 29: 117–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Fraassen, Bas C. (1977). “The Pragmatics of Explanation.” American Philosophical Quarterly 14: 143–50.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. (1975). “Theory of International Relations.” In Greenstein, F. and Polsby, N. (eds.), Handbook of Political Science, Vol. 8. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. W. N. (1975). “Metaphysics and the Advancement of Science.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 26: 91–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whewell, William (1847). The Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences. New York: Johnson Reprint Co.Google Scholar
Winch, P. (1972). Ethics and Action. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig (1967). Zettel. Edited by Anscombe, G. E. M. and von Wright, G. H.. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Young, Oran R. (1969a). “Aron and the Whale: A Jonah in Theory.” In Knorr, Klaus and Rosenau, James N. (eds.), Contending Approaches to International Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Young, Oran R. (1969b). “Professor Russett: Industrious Tailor to a Naked Emperor.” World Politics 21: 486–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, Oran R. (1972). “The Perils of Odysseus.” World Politics, supplement 24: 179–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahar, E. G. (1973). “Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24: 95–123, 223–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.