“Proving” or “Disproving” Theories

Theory as methodology

Relation of theory to data:A theory can neither be “proved” nor

“disproved” by data alone. It is one of the commonest errors of

undergraduate research to suppose they can.

Yet the relation of theories to data is central to any empirical science.

Lieberson on Einstein, again When there is a case, like that of the “proof”

of general relativity and the “disproof” of Euclidian space, that implies:

The auxiliary assumptions by which one gets from basic principles to observed measures are widely accepted.

Lieberson was arguing that me need to spend more time and attention on middle range theories and measurements.

Theories cannot be proved true The fact that a theory predicts correctly does

not show that the theory is true because there are always indefinitely many

alternate theories for any particular empirical finding or body of facts.

This is true both of very general theories and of very specific hypotheses.

It is a well-known empirical fallacy to argue: “A implies B; B is true; therefore A is true.” “If all humans are female, then Mary Queen of Scots was female; she was; therefore, all humans are female.”

A theory course must make one better able to think of alternate theories for any finding.

Falsificationism: Karl Popper

Popper stressed the fact that if a theory predicts falsely, this does imply that the theory, as formulated, is false.

Finding a single black swan shows that it is not true that “All swans are white.”

Popper argued that good theories are those that make many predictions which could have been false but which turned out not to be.

This position is called falsificationism, and is accepted, with modifications, by many sociologists, such as A. Stinchcombe.

The point of falsificationism Popper’s real targets were Marx and Freud. He thought that conceptions such as the

“unconscious” or “latent class struggle” were dishonest ways of avoiding real tests of the theories,

Which were overly flexible, and could be made consistent with any observations, whatever.

He argued for simpler theories that generated hypotheses that could be directly tested.

Why theories cannot be disproved, either

The central problem of falsificationism was pointed out by one of Popper’s students, Lakatos:

The fact that a theory has predicted incorrectly shows that there is some kind of problem with the theory or with the assumptions used to apply it,

But it does not show what the problem is. Only with indefinitely many auxiliary assumptions is any

particular data consistent or inconsistent with any particular theory.

An example: the discoveries of Uranus and Pluto For Popper, the discoveries of the outer planets,

not visible to the naked eye, were among the great triumphs of Newtonian mechanics.

The theory was specific enough, so that when the know planets orbits were not as predicted, it was possible to calculate where additional planets would have to be to disturb the orbits in the ways, observed.

But note that Newtonian theory was not rejected, but fixed.

Dealing with an “Anomaly” When a theory predicts incorrectly, in a way we

do not understand, that is called an anomaly. One solution to the anomaly of Neptune’s orbit

was an additional planet, which was found, But many other solutions were possible: a dust

cloud, a magnetic field, a dark body, an optical problem, and scientists would never have rejected Newtonian mechanics without a superior theory, nor should they.

Theories only make predictions with “auxiliary assumptions” and if one can make these arbitrarily, then any theory can be made consistent with any data.

Dealing with anomalies

Whenever you apply a theory to data you make auxiliary assumptions,

and the auxiliary assumptions may be nonproblematical in any particular case.

Anomalies have been part of many scientific revolutions, such as Einstein’s.

Deciding how to respond to an anomaly is a theoretical judgment.

Usually one makes the simplest, most modest and most economical corrections available (e.g. measurement assumptions.)

The main paradigms in sociology

P. 267-276 of OW shows that the different maps of the main theoretical positions in sociology can be translated into each other.

They boil down to two dimensions: functional v conflict and micro v macro. However:

1. The 20-odd different sections of sociology such as medical sociology contain importantly different theoretical positions.

2. Any way of dividing the 20,000 or so practicing sociologists into a small number of “schools” is bound to simplify

The main map

Functional macro-theory

e.g. Durkheim, Parsons

Organizational- macro-theory

e.g. Weber’s rationalization

Conflict macro-theory

e.g. Marx

Functional microtheory

e.g. some aspects of Merton

Interactionist micro-theory

e.g. Mead

Conflict micro-theory

e.g. Mills

Functional theory Functional theorists mainly treat society as a

stable solidary system. Durkheim is the classical example. Parsons’ view of social structure as a self-

maintaining normatively integrated system is the main contemporary example.

There are functional approaches and theories in every section and sub field of sociology

Conflict theory

Other theorists mainly treat society as a competitive system.

Marx’ view of modes of production and exploitation as replacing each other by a process of class conflict is the classic example

Mills, Feagin, Massey, and Reskin are contemporary examples.

Organization theories as a MixThe interactionist/organization theories

stemming from Weber, Mead, and others, can be viewed as an ambivalent synthesis of elements of conflict and functional theory.

Often the elements that distinguish them from functional or conflict theory appear at the micro level.

Micro-theory v Macro-theory

Micro-theories mainly treat social structure as the outcome of individual choices and actions.

Parsons took Weber’s action theory as the main model.

Other American sociologists took George Herbert Mead’s interactionism as a model.

The main difference between rational-action theories stemming from Weber and symbolic interaction theories, stemming from Mead is the nature of the tinker-toy, but they are both tinker-toy models.

Macro-theoryMacro-theories focus on the fact that

humans and human behavior is shaped by the social structure.

This leads to concentrating on how social structures influence their members and other social structures.

Theory simplifies to the “essential” It is trivially true that both:

functional and conflict processes operate

and also that: individuals create social structures and social

structures shape individuals.

However, it is also trivially obvious that any theory must simplify, and that models that include everything are usually too complex to use or test.

Theory and research I) model specificationThe first set of jobs that “theory” does is

called “model specification”One can only test a hypothesis if one

can make assumptions about what variables are involved and what is their causal order.

These follow from general theoretical considerations; often they are adopted from the existing strand of research.

Theory and researchII) Domain SpecificationA theory is a claim.Usually it applies to some set of cases

more limited than all social structures in all of recorded history.

Theory involves establishing the domain of the theory.

Statistical interactions are the main clues about domains

Theory and researchIII) GeneralizationParticular findings, empirical

generalizations, and hypotheses (e.g. Protestants have higher suicide rates) need to be related to more general processes.

Conceptualization (e.g. “deviance” rather than “crime” or “suicide”) is partly a matter of generalizing.

Theory and researchIV) ExplanationThe conceptualization, and the

establishment of the conditions and size of the effects is basic to establishing what is the mechanism that brings it about.

The main paradigms propose mechanisms.

Theory and researchResearch establishes that there is an

association.Theoretical questions involve Why?

How? and When? I.e. what direction does the causal

arrow run in, under what circumstances, why and how?