Syntezy nie osiągniesz? Holizm konfirmacyjny wobec dyskursu teoretycznego w Stosunkach Międzynarodowych
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.19.2022.76.11Keywords:
International Relations, philosophy of science, confirmation holism, the Duhem-Quine thesis, interparadigm debatesAbstract
AN IMPOSSIBLE SYNTHESIS? THE CONFIRMATION HOLISM AND THEORETICAL DISCOURSE IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
In the authors’ opinion, the negative impact on the development of International Relations (IR) was exerted by the way of conducting the discourse, which we refer to as Popperism and which was expressed by the so-called “interparadigm” debates. At the root of Popperism there is the assumption that one observation that contradicts the predictions of a given theory may be the basis for its refutation. Moreover, it has become common practice to reject one theory on the basis of another. An alternative is proposed in the text - a Duhemian way of conducting discourse based on the principle of confirmation holism. One of the main principles of confirmation of holism, based on the principle of weak falsificationism (as opposed to Popper’s strong falsificationism) is the assumption that due to the subjective nature of science, theories cannot be finally confirmed or rejected. Moreover, the assumptions of one theory cannot serve as a ground for disproving another. The authors of the article point out that the application of the confirmation holism can positively impact research practice in IR and contribute to the development of the discipline.
Downloads
References
Adler E., Pouliot V., International Practices, „International Theory” 2011, [online] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-theory/article/abs/international-practices/5B4330A95B17B8B4F1EC9BFB45087B78.
Barkin J.S., Realist Constructivism, Cambridge 2010, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750410. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750410
Berenskötter F., Approaches to Concept Analysis, „Journal of International Studies” 2017, vol. 45, nr 2, https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829816651934. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0305829816651934
Biersteker T., Critical Reflections on Post-Positivism in International Relations, „International Studies Quarterly” 1989, vol. 33, nr 3, https://doi.org/10.2307/2600459. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2600459
Bohr N., Atomic Theory and the Description of Nature, New York 1961.
Brown C., The Poverty of Grand Theory, „European Journal of International Relations” 2013, vol. 19, nr 3, https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494321. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494321
Can Theories Be Refuted? Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis, red. S.G. Harding, Boston 1976.
Cornut J., The Practice Turn in International Relations Theory, „International Studies”, [online] https://oxfordre.com/internationalstudies/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.
0001/acrefore-9780190846626-e-113, https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190846626.013.113
Czaputowicz J., Teorie stosunków międzynarodowych. Krytyka i systematyzacja, Warszawa 2007.
Duhem P., The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, New Jersey 1982.
Ehrlich L., Wstęp do nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych, Bytom 1947.
Filary-Szczepanik M., Wybrane idee regulatywne w nauce o stosunkach międzynarodowych, „Stosunki Międzynarodowe. International Relations” 2019, vol. 55, nr 1.
Gałganek A., Filozofia nauki o stosunkach międzynarodowych. Ontologia, epistemologia, metodologia, Kraków 2021.
Guzzini S., The Ends of International Relations Theory: Stages of Reflexivity and Modes of Theorizing, „European Journal of International Relations” 2013, vol. 19, nr 3, https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494327. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494327
Hamilton S., A Genealogy of Metatheory in IR: How ‘Ontology’ Emerged from the Inter-paradigm Debate, „International Theory” 2017, vol. 9, nr 1, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971916000257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1752971916000257
Haven E., Khrennikov A., Quantum Social Science, New York 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139003261
Heisenberg W., Fizyka a filozofia, przeł. S. Amsterdamski, Stuttgart 1959, [online] https://docer.pl/doc/nn0nv58.
Jackson P.T., The Conduct of Inquiry in International Relations: Philosophy of Science and Its Implications for the Study of World Politics, New York 2010.
Krauz-Mozer B., Metodologiczne problemy wyjaśniania w nauce o polityce, Kraków 1992.
Lakatos I., The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, red. J. Worrall, G. Currie, Cambridge 1978, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621123
Lapid Y., The Third Debate. On the Prospects of International Relations Theory in a Post-positivist Era, „International Studies Quarterly” 1989, vol. 33, nr 3, https://doi.org/10.2307/2600457. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2600457
Lauer R., Is Social Ontology Prior to Social Scientific Methodology?, „Philosophy of the Social Sciences” 2019, vol. 49, nr 3, https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393119840328. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0048393119840328
Lebow R.N., Philosophy and International Relations, „International Affairs” 2011, vol. 87, nr 5, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2011.01030.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2346.2011.01030.x
Peirce J.S., Philosophical Writings of Peirce, red. J. Buchler, New York 1955.
Polus A., Kryzys teorii stosunków międzynarodowych w dobie globalizacji, „Kultura – Historia – Globalizacja” 2010, vol. 8.
Popper K., Background Knowledge and Scientific Growth, [w:] Can Theories Be Refuted? Essays on the Duhem-Quine Thesis, red. S.G. Harding, Boston 1976, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_6
Popper K., Logika odkrycia naukowego, przeł. U. Niklas, Warszawa 2002.
Popper K., Nędza historycyzmu. Z dodaniem fragmentów autobiografii, wstęp S. Amsterdamski, Warszawa 1989.
Quine W.O., Granice wiedzy i inne eseje filozoficzne, wybór B. Stanosz, Warszawa 1986.
Russell B., The Scientific Outlook, London–New York 2009, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203875384. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203875384
Sil R., Katzenstein P.J., Beyond Paradigms. Analytical Eclecticism in the Study of World Politics, Basingstoke 2010, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-01359-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-01359-0_1
Sylvester C., Experiencing the End and Afterlives of International Relations/Theory, „European Journal of International Relations” 2013, vol. 19, nr 3, https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066113494322
Wǽver O., The Rise and Fall of the Inter-paradigm Debate, [w:] International Theory: Positivism
& Beyond, red. S. Smith, K. Booth, M. Zalewski, Cambridge 1996, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511660054.009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511660054.009
Waltz K., Theory of International Politics, Boston 1979.
Wight C., Agents, Structures and International Relations: Politics as Ontology, New York 2006, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491764. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491764
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.