Author
Abstract
In the view of a more or less characteristic attitude toward “arm-chair stuff,” it is fair to say that this paper is frankly of that variety, it does not present theresults, tabulated or otherwise, of any inductive investigation, under controlled conditions and no apology will be made to anybody on that score. Nor will much time be taken in arguing the worth-whileness of abstract thinking on the question of methods, or in settling the place of deduction in relation to induction. One way to study the problem of methods would be to try all possible methods on all possible problems and see which gave useful or satisfying results. In the same way, one way to study any science would be to try all possible experiments and see which ones succeed. (mushrooms and toadstools). I shall simply assume without much discussion that while the only way tosettleany question in case of persistent uncertainty of disagreement is to try it, on the other hand two things are true; in the first place much labor can be saved by getting as clear an understanding of any problem as possible in advance of inductive study that blind trial and error methods are wasteful; and moreover, inductive investigation itself rarely proves anything unless it is intelligently planned and carried out with a view to proving or disproving some hypothesis which has seemed in the light of careful previous analysis to be worth testing. And of course I assume that these principles hold in relation to the study of methods as well as in other lines of inquiry. It is true that much a priori discussion is inconclusive, misdirected, and futile; it is often true that it is needlessly prolonged, carried beyond the point necessary to define the issues and serve as a guide in an investigation of facts. It is even true, though very exceptionally, that in some cases it is entirely helpless and the only thing to do is to begin experimentation blindly or wait for some accidental coincidence to suggest a solution of a problem. For example, the discovery of effective catalyzers in chemistry, or perhaps the stains to differentiate a suspected bacterium or the treatment for a new disease. But is also true that an enormous proportion of inductive scientific study is misdirected and futile because the problem was not adequately analyzed to begin with. In the field of social science, with which I am fairly familiar it is triturating the obvious to say that the greater part of the statistical studies either prove only what everybody already knew and which called for no proof or else seem to prove something that everyone knows is false. And when the result of statistics conflicts with the convictions of common sense, which is really well-informed judgment, it is a trite observation that it isusuallythe statistics which are wrong (Pearson). The man in the street has only too much justification for the common belief that anything can be proved by statistics, and for the well-known division of liars into the three grades: plain liars, damned liars, and statisticians.
Suggested Citation
Ross B. Emmett, 2011.
"Logical Method in the Social Sciences,"
Research in the History of Economic Thought and Methodology, in: Frank H. Knight in Iowa City, 1919–1928, pages 103-121,
Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Handle:
RePEc:eme:rhetzz:s0743-4154(2011)000029b013
DOI: 10.1108/S0743-4154(2011)000029B013
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:eme:rhetzz:s0743-4154(2011)000029b013. 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: Emerald Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.