Re: On Socialization

["Alan G. Isaac" <AISAAC@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Herb, Although I agree with you that the claim that observations
are theory dependent is often abused as you assert, would you
agree that it has at least two areas of usefulness?

i. It demolishes the behaviorist research program, which
attempted to describe and predict behavior without any
reference to the mental (e.g., to motivation). I think
Sen's _Econometrica_ article on the incoherence of
the concept of internal consistency of choice drives this
home. Roughly, it is methodologically relevant that
there is no such thing as uninterpreted behavior.
(Btw, I don't think economists have discarded that program;
we can talk about that if necessary.)

ii. It serves as a point of entry for discussions of
the role of ideology in legitimating social structures.
(This is not an argument that it is uniquely useful, just
that it is useful for this purpose.)

I would also add that your interpretation of the claim that
observation is always theory laden as being in contradiction
with the role of falsification in the advance of science
--although matching some of the ruder versions--does not
correspond with the claim as embodied in even moderately
sophisticated discussions of the sociology of knowledge.

--Alan G. Isaac

On Tue, 8 Nov 1994 02:13:07 -0700 Herbert Gintis said:
>	The second assertion (theory-ladenness of observation) is not
>persuasive to me either. It has been a common assertion of mushy
>thinkers from Hegel to the present. It is contradicted by the fact
>that quite regularly observation in in contradiction with theory. This
>is how all science progresses. It is also the lazy person's way out:
>dont' bother finding out really what's wrong with a theory you
>disagree with. Just say that its observations are theory-laden. Don't
>try to prove your own theory--just say it's impossible so I'll believe
>what feels good to me.