Author
Abstract
This paper looks at the difficulties faced in making a knowledge claim, especially in social science. A knowledge claim is defined here as a justified belief, that would be open to change in the light of new evidence. The discussion is based on claims defined by two distinct types of knowledge. Claims can be envisaged as “fully descriptive” or more “generally descriptive”, and they can be causal or not. Each type is commonly used in social science. But each requires different philosophical assumptions. Fully descriptive claims merely summarise any data observed. This is the easiest and safest kind of claim, but even these might suffer from non-random errors and inaccuracies. However, their biggest limitation is sometimes their lack of any wider purpose. Generally descriptive claims are often more useful, and involve statements about as yet unobserved data hypothesised on the basis of a fully descriptive claim. Here we meet Hume’s problem of induction. These claims have two parts – fully descriptive and inductive - and the inductive part cannot seemingly be justified by logic, inferential statistics, Carnap’s inductive probabilities, or even necessarily by Popper’s falsification process. The third type, causal claims, are also usually general claims. This paper summarises a model, based on the work of Mill, Bradford-Hill, and others, of what a plausible causal claim entails. But it still has all of the problems emerging from the first two types of claim, and adds a further problem created by our inability to assess causes directly. The paper concludes by suggesting how social science can proceed most safely in practice, and in terms of theoretical explanations, by avoiding being misled by false claims to knowledge, and reporting research findings with tentative care and judgement.
Suggested Citation
Stephen Gorard, 2025.
"Difficulties in Making Claims to Knowledge in Social Science,"
Research in Social Sciences, Academia Publishing Group, vol. 8(2), pages 35-53.
Handle:
RePEc:ajo:reissc:v:8:y:2025:i:2:p:35-53:id:340
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ajo:reissc:v:8:y:2025:i:2:p:35-53:id:340. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Lucía Aguado (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academiainsight.com/index.php/riss/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.