马克斯·韦伯的因果理论:对后真理的抵制考察

K. Gaaze
{"title":"马克斯·韦伯的因果理论:对后真理的抵制考察","authors":"K. Gaaze","doi":"10.17323/1728-192X-2019-2-41-61","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Post-truth as a form of epistemological democracy (Fuller, 2018) is a fight for authority between equal explanatory models with epistemological methods. What should a disciplinary reaction of sociology be to the dawn of post-truth? We are to re-investigate models of causal imputation within the domain of sociology in order to eliminate not any particular “bad” judgments of post-truth, but their logical forms. Max Weber spent at least five years developing a consistent theory of causation for sociology. To build his complex theoretical apparatus of causal imputation, Weber used the ideas of Johannes von Kries, a German psychologist and a philosopher of science. Because of logical vulnerabilities of von Kries’s theory, both Weberian models of causal imputation can lead to the emergence of at least two forms of illegitimate judgments. However, Weber was not only mistaken but he also succeeded. The reading of his second model of causation, the “chance causation,” can contribute to the debates over the notion of the subjective meaning in Weber’s interpretative sociology.","PeriodicalId":128581,"journal":{"name":"The Contemporary Relevance of a Classic: Max Weber in the 21st Century","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Max Weber’s Theory of Causality: An Examination on the Resistance to Post-Truth\",\"authors\":\"K. Gaaze\",\"doi\":\"10.17323/1728-192X-2019-2-41-61\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Post-truth as a form of epistemological democracy (Fuller, 2018) is a fight for authority between equal explanatory models with epistemological methods. What should a disciplinary reaction of sociology be to the dawn of post-truth? We are to re-investigate models of causal imputation within the domain of sociology in order to eliminate not any particular “bad” judgments of post-truth, but their logical forms. Max Weber spent at least five years developing a consistent theory of causation for sociology. To build his complex theoretical apparatus of causal imputation, Weber used the ideas of Johannes von Kries, a German psychologist and a philosopher of science. Because of logical vulnerabilities of von Kries’s theory, both Weberian models of causal imputation can lead to the emergence of at least two forms of illegitimate judgments. However, Weber was not only mistaken but he also succeeded. The reading of his second model of causation, the “chance causation,” can contribute to the debates over the notion of the subjective meaning in Weber’s interpretative sociology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":128581,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Contemporary Relevance of a Classic: Max Weber in the 21st Century\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Contemporary Relevance of a Classic: Max Weber in the 21st Century\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192X-2019-2-41-61\",\"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 Contemporary Relevance of a Classic: Max Weber in the 21st Century","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/1728-192X-2019-2-41-61","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

后真理作为认识论民主的一种形式(Fuller, 2018)是认识论方法的平等解释模型之间的权威之争。对于后真相的曙光,社会学的学科反应应该是什么?我们要重新研究社会学领域内的因果归因模型,目的不是消除任何特定的“坏”后真理判断,而是消除它们的逻辑形式。马克斯·韦伯(Max Weber)花了至少五年的时间为社会学发展出一套一致的因果关系理论。为了建立他复杂的因果归因理论工具,韦伯使用了德国心理学家和科学哲学家约翰内斯·冯·克里斯的思想。由于von Kries理论的逻辑脆弱性,两种韦伯因果归因模型都可能导致至少两种形式的非法判断的出现。然而,韦伯不仅错了,而且成功了。对他的第二个因果关系模型,即“偶然因果关系”的解读,有助于对韦伯解释社会学中主观意义概念的争论。
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
Max Weber’s Theory of Causality: An Examination on the Resistance to Post-Truth
Post-truth as a form of epistemological democracy (Fuller, 2018) is a fight for authority between equal explanatory models with epistemological methods. What should a disciplinary reaction of sociology be to the dawn of post-truth? We are to re-investigate models of causal imputation within the domain of sociology in order to eliminate not any particular “bad” judgments of post-truth, but their logical forms. Max Weber spent at least five years developing a consistent theory of causation for sociology. To build his complex theoretical apparatus of causal imputation, Weber used the ideas of Johannes von Kries, a German psychologist and a philosopher of science. Because of logical vulnerabilities of von Kries’s theory, both Weberian models of causal imputation can lead to the emergence of at least two forms of illegitimate judgments. However, Weber was not only mistaken but he also succeeded. The reading of his second model of causation, the “chance causation,” can contribute to the debates over the notion of the subjective meaning in Weber’s interpretative sociology.
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
The Protestant Ethic in the Russian Context: Peter Struve and Sergey Bulgakov Read Max Weber (1907–1909) The Soviet Version of Modernity: Weberian and Post-Weberian Perspectives From Weberian Bureaucracy to Networking Bureaucracy Max Weber and the November Revolution of 1918 in Germany; or, Why Bolshevism Had No Chance in the West Max Weber and the Great War: Personal Opinions and Essays as Historical Sociology
×
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