This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Rational Choice, Scientific Method and Social Scientism

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Bongo Adi (Regional Economic Development, University of Tsukuba, Japan)
Kenneth Amaeshi (Warwick Business School, Coventry, UK)
Suminori Tokunaga (Regional Economic Development, University of Tsukuba, Japan)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The eighteenth-century introduction of the scientific method of the natural sciences to the study of social phenomena draws a line between moral philosophy Ethat aspect of ancient and medieval philosophy that dealt with social issues Eand the social sciences as known today. From the onset, the emerging social science, or rather, its epistemological orientation to ‘social scientism,Ewas vigorously challenged by many critics who saw it as a reductionist and mechanistic understanding of human beings and their society. In recent times, this criticism has narrowed down to the critique of the rationalist assumptions or rational choice theory on which much of social scientism is built. Critics of the natural science ideal in the social sciences argue that the subject matter of the social sciences Ehuman beings, their society and interactions Eis so complex and different a system that subjecting it to the crucible of the scientific method of the natural, positivist sciences not only limits its understanding but leaves it with an abrasive and distorting impact. In the same manner, critiques of rational choice theory argue that it is a reductionism that does not account for a significant proportion of human actions and motives. What seems to be advocated for is a sort of social science method that addresses the shortcomings of the scientific method applied to social phenomena and employs a more robust model of human action that supersedes the rational choice model. This paper however posits that rationalist assumptions or rational choice theory is not peculiar to social scientism but lies at the foundation of modern and contemporary science and its method. We trace out the centrality of individual rationality assumptions in the general epistemology of the scientific method and social scienticism within the context of the centuries-old debate on the limitations of the scientific method in the social sciences. Our thesis hints at the impossibility of a modern and contemporary scientific model of either nature (physics) or society that does not assume individualist or subjective rationality.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://129.3.20.41/eps/mhet/papers/0509/0509001.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by EconWPA in its series Method and Hist of Econ Thought with number 0509001.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length: 19 pages
Date of creation: 07 Sep 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpmh:0509001

Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 19
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://129.3.20.41

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (EconWPA).

Related research
Keywords: Scientific Method; Social Scientism; Rational Choice;

Find related papers by JEL classification:
B - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

  1. Metcalfe, J S, 2001. "Institutions and Progress," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(3), pages 561-86, September.
  2. Paul J. Zak, 2005. "The Neuroeconomics of Trust," Experimental 0507004, EconWPA. [Downloadable!]
  3. Paul A. David, 2004. "Understanding the emergence of 'open science' institutions: functionalist economics in historical context," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 571-589, August.
  4. Stefano Brusoni, 2003. "Authority in the Age of Modularity," SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series 101, University of Sussex, SPRU - Science and Technology Policy Research. [Downloadable!]
  5. J. Doyne Farmer & Martin Shubik & Eric Smith, 2005. "Economics: the next physical science?," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1520, Cowles Foundation, Yale University. [Downloadable!]
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? To receive notification of recent additions to the database, subscribe to the free NEP reports.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-19.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.