Artwork

Content provided by Center for Mind, Brain, and Culture, Emory College, Emory Center for Mind, and Culture (CMBC). All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Center for Mind, Brain, and Culture, Emory College, Emory Center for Mind, and Culture (CMBC) or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!

McCauley Honorary | Kareem Khalifa "The Methodenstreit Ain't Right: McCauley on Interpretation and Explanation"

30:02
 
Share
 

Manage episode 384904333 series 2538953
Content provided by Center for Mind, Brain, and Culture, Emory College, Emory Center for Mind, and Culture (CMBC). All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Center for Mind, Brain, and Culture, Emory College, Emory Center for Mind, and Culture (CMBC) or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.

Kareem Khalifa | Philosophy, University of California, Los Angeles
"The Methodenstreit Ain't Right: McCauley on Interpretation and Explanation"

Does interpretation distinguish the human sciences from the natural sciences? Or do explanations drive the human sciences in a manner akin to their more venerable natural-scientific cousins? These questions fueled the decades-old Methodenstreit (“methodological dispute”) about the foundations of the social sciences. Rising above the fray, McCauley has long endorsed interactionism, according to which interpretations and explanations of the same cultural-symbolic phenomenon are complements rather than competitors. He contrasts interactionism with exclusivism, which holds that only one of these approaches is applicable to cultural-symbolic phenomena, and inclusivism, which subordinates explanation to interpretation. However, all three of these positions assume that there is a nontrivial distinction between interpretation and explanation. By contrast, I will argue that putative examples of interpretations that defy explanation rely on overly restrictive conceptions of causation, lawlike generalizations, or perspective-taking in the natural sciences. As a result, all cultural-symbolic phenomena should be explained, though different explanations of those phenomena are still mutually beneficial in the ways that interactionism suggests.

  continue reading

292 episodes

Artwork
iconShare
 
Manage episode 384904333 series 2538953
Content provided by Center for Mind, Brain, and Culture, Emory College, Emory Center for Mind, and Culture (CMBC). All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Center for Mind, Brain, and Culture, Emory College, Emory Center for Mind, and Culture (CMBC) or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://player.fm/legal.

Kareem Khalifa | Philosophy, University of California, Los Angeles
"The Methodenstreit Ain't Right: McCauley on Interpretation and Explanation"

Does interpretation distinguish the human sciences from the natural sciences? Or do explanations drive the human sciences in a manner akin to their more venerable natural-scientific cousins? These questions fueled the decades-old Methodenstreit (“methodological dispute”) about the foundations of the social sciences. Rising above the fray, McCauley has long endorsed interactionism, according to which interpretations and explanations of the same cultural-symbolic phenomenon are complements rather than competitors. He contrasts interactionism with exclusivism, which holds that only one of these approaches is applicable to cultural-symbolic phenomena, and inclusivism, which subordinates explanation to interpretation. However, all three of these positions assume that there is a nontrivial distinction between interpretation and explanation. By contrast, I will argue that putative examples of interpretations that defy explanation rely on overly restrictive conceptions of causation, lawlike generalizations, or perspective-taking in the natural sciences. As a result, all cultural-symbolic phenomena should be explained, though different explanations of those phenomena are still mutually beneficial in the ways that interactionism suggests.

  continue reading

292 episodes

All episodes

×
 
Loading …

Welcome to Player FM!

Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.

 

Quick Reference Guide