Ways of Knowing How do we know what we know? This is the main theme of the book, Ways of Knowing. This book can almost be seen as a toolbox for Social and Political Scientists, giving them different tools to help with research. Not every research requires the same tools. The book is divided in two sections, the naturalist method and the constructivist method. The first section discuss the history and application of the naturalist method. The historical portion of this section discusses philosophers like Francis Bacon, John Locke, and Karl Popper. Most philosophers have continued to build on their work. Popper’s argument was best illustrated in with a quote from Sherlock Holmes, “First, you have to acquire all the necessary facts. Then you
…show more content…
Finally, you systematically compare each of the various ways against the events of the Real World and eliminate, one by one those that are not supported by evidence. In the end, ‘when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth’” (page 41). This is one of the simplest ways to describe the naturalist method, a social scientist will gather evidence from experiments, surveys, and data to prove or disprove a theory, but they will also eliminate evidence that is not relevant. Evidence might have correlation but might not prove causation. This section goes over the different ways that naturalist know the Real World. The different chapter go into detail about experiments, statistics, and case studies. The most fascinating portion is Chapter 7, “Sowing Doubts About Naturalist Methodology.” This chapter argues that the naturalist method does not always describe the entire picture of the social world. “Those who criticize methodology monism tend to subscribe to one of two possible positions. On the one hand are those who want to argue for methodology pluralism…The problem, however, is agreeing on the measure of ‘appropriateness’…At the other end of the spectrum, many postmodernists find methodological assumptions to be both alien and
Finally, you systematically compare each of the various ways against the events of the Real World and eliminate, one by one those that are not supported by evidence. In the end, ‘when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth’” (page 41). This is one of the simplest ways to describe the naturalist method, a social scientist will gather evidence from experiments, surveys, and data to prove or disprove a theory, but they will also eliminate evidence that is not relevant. Evidence might have correlation but might not prove causation. This section goes over the different ways that naturalist know the Real World. The different chapter go into detail about experiments, statistics, and case studies. The most fascinating portion is Chapter 7, “Sowing Doubts About Naturalist Methodology.” This chapter argues that the naturalist method does not always describe the entire picture of the social world. “Those who criticize methodology monism tend to subscribe to one of two possible positions. On the one hand are those who want to argue for methodology pluralism…The problem, however, is agreeing on the measure of ‘appropriateness’…At the other end of the spectrum, many postmodernists find methodological assumptions to be both alien and