理性选择、经验贡献和科学事业

M. Fiorina
{"title":"理性选择、经验贡献和科学事业","authors":"M. Fiorina","doi":"10.1080/08913819508443373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Don Green and Ian Shapiro's Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory, despite the impressive amount of work that has gone into it, is undercut by a number of serious misunderstandings of the use of the rational choice approach by students of American politics. Furthermore, Green and Shapiro adopt an extremely pinched notion of an empirical contribution and an outmoded and idealized view of the scientific method. If their standards were adopted, it would be difficult to allow that anyone in political science has made an empirical contribution, or that political science is a scientific enterprise.","PeriodicalId":270344,"journal":{"name":"The Rational Choice Controversy","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rational Choice, Empirical Contributions, and the Scientific Enterprise\",\"authors\":\"M. Fiorina\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08913819508443373\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Don Green and Ian Shapiro's Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory, despite the impressive amount of work that has gone into it, is undercut by a number of serious misunderstandings of the use of the rational choice approach by students of American politics. Furthermore, Green and Shapiro adopt an extremely pinched notion of an empirical contribution and an outmoded and idealized view of the scientific method. If their standards were adopted, it would be difficult to allow that anyone in political science has made an empirical contribution, or that political science is a scientific enterprise.\",\"PeriodicalId\":270344,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Rational Choice Controversy\",\"volume\":\"3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Rational Choice Controversy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913819508443373\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Rational Choice Controversy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08913819508443373","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

唐·格林和伊恩·夏皮罗的《理性选择理论的病理学》,尽管已经投入了大量的工作,但由于美国政治学生对理性选择方法的使用存在一些严重的误解,这本书被削弱了。此外,格林和夏皮罗采用了一种极其狭隘的经验贡献概念,以及一种过时和理想化的科学方法观点。如果采用他们的标准,就很难承认政治科学中的任何人做出了经验性的贡献,或者政治科学是一项科学事业。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Rational Choice, Empirical Contributions, and the Scientific Enterprise
Don Green and Ian Shapiro's Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory, despite the impressive amount of work that has gone into it, is undercut by a number of serious misunderstandings of the use of the rational choice approach by students of American politics. Furthermore, Green and Shapiro adopt an extremely pinched notion of an empirical contribution and an outmoded and idealized view of the scientific method. If their standards were adopted, it would be difficult to allow that anyone in political science has made an empirical contribution, or that political science is a scientific enterprise.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Unification, Universalism, and Rational Choice Theory Pathologies Revisited: Reflections on Our Critics The Poverty of Green and Shapiro Rational Choice Theory’s Mysterious Rivals Rational Choice Theory as Social Physics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1