Compare and Contrast Positivism and Interpretivism

Compare and Contrast Positivism and Interpretivism Positivism is a theoretical and methodological approach in contemporary criminology. Positivists believe that human behavior is shaped by biological, psychological or social factors and forces. These factors and forces are called individual pathology which deter the decision-making and control ability of an individual and results in behavioral problems (White Haines, 2003). To extend to legal definition, crime is defined as individual pathology to obey law and to conform to moral consensus of the society. Positivism approach in criminology examines the trait distinctions between offenders, rather than on the criminal acts as the focus of analysis. Also, positivism determines how these differences predispose a person towards criminality (White Haines, 2003). Positivists believed that these traits observed can be diagnosed and treated by dealing with and removing the factors and forces that cause the offending behavior to occur. In a positivist view of the world, science was seen as the way to get at truth, to understand the world well enough so that we might predict and control it. The world and the universe were deterministic they operated by laws of cause and effect that we could discern if we applied the unique approach of the scientific method. Science was largely a mechanistic or mechanical affair. We use deductive reasoning to postulate theories that we can test. Based on the results of our studies, we may learn that our theory doesnt fit the facts well and so we need to revise our theory to better predict reality. The positivist believed in empiricism the idea that observation and measurement was the core of the scientific endeavor. The key approach of the scientific method is the experiment, the attempt to discern natural laws through direct manipulation and observation. Paradigm of social research represent paradigm by following the idea of Thomas Kuhn who is the first thinker of paradigm that was showed in the book named structure of scientific revolutionsin 1962. In social science has two important paradigm that used for research society and event which happen in social that are positivism and interpretivism Critical Positivism Post-Positivism Lets start our very brief discussion of philosophy of science with a simple distinction between epistemology and methodology. The term epistemology comes from the Greek word epistà ªmà ª, their term for knowledge. In simple terms, epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge or of how we come to know. Methodology is also concerned with how we come to know, but is much more practical in nature. Methodology is focused on the specific ways the methods that we can use to try to understand our world better. Epistemology and methodology are intimately related: the former involves the philosophy of how we come to know the world and the latter involves the practice. When most people in our society think about science, they think about some guy in a white lab coat working at a lab bench mixing up chemicals. They think of science as boring, cut-and-dry, and they think of the scientist as narrow-minded and esoteric (the ultimate nerd think of the humorous but nonetheless mad scientist in the Back to the Future movies, for instance). A lot of our stereotypes about science come from a period where science was dominated by a particular philosophy positivism that tended to support some of these views. Here, I want to suggest (no matter what the movie industry may think) that science has moved on in its thinking into an era of post-positivism where many of those stereotypes of the scientist no longer hold up. Lets begin by considering what positivism is. In its broadest sense, positivism is a rejection of metaphysics (I leave it you to look up that term if youre not familiar with it). It is a position that holds that the goal of knowledge is simply to describe the phenomena that we experience. The purpose of science is simply to stick to what we can observe and measure. Knowledge of anything beyond that, a positivist would hold, is impossible. When I think of positivism (and the related philosophy of logical positivism) I think of the behaviorists in mid-20th Century psychology. These were the mythical rat runners who believed that psychology could only study what could be directly observed and measured. Since we cant directly observe emotions, thoughts, etc. (although we may be able to measure some of the physical and physiological accompaniments), these were not legitimate topics for a scientific psychology. B.F. Skinner argued that psychology needed to concentrate only on the positive and negative reinforcers of behavior in order to predict how people will behave everything else in between (like what the person is thinking) is irrelevant because it cant be measured. In a positivist view of the world, science was seen as the way to get at truth, to understand the world well enough so that we might predict and control it. The world and the universe were deterministic they operated by laws of cause and effect that we could discern if we applied the unique approach of the scientific method. Science was largely a mechanistic or mechanical affair. We use deductive reasoning to postulate theories that we can test. Based on the results of our studies, we may learn that our theory doesnt fit the facts well and so we need to revise our theory to better predict reality. The positivist believed in empiricism the idea that observation and measurement was the core of the scientific endeavor. The key approach of the scientific method is the experiment, the attempt to discern natural laws through direct manipulation and observation. OK, I am exaggerating the positivist position (although you may be amazed at how close to this some of them actually came) in order to make a point. Things have changed in our views of science since the middle part of the 20th century. Probably the most important has been our shift away from positivism into what we term post-positivism. By post-positivism, I dont mean a slight adjustment to or revision of the positivist position post-positivism is a wholesale rejection of the central tenets of positivism. A post-positivist might begin by recognizing that the way scientists think and work and the way we think in our everyday life are not distinctly different. Scientific reasoning and common sense reasoning are essentially the same process. There is no difference in kind between the two, only a difference in degree. Scientists, for example, follow specific procedures to assure that observations are verifiable, accurate and consistent. In everyday reasoning, we dont always proceed so c arefully (although, if you think about it, when the stakes are high, even in everyday life we become much more cautious about measurement. Think of the way most responsible parents keep continuous watch over their infants, noticing details that non-parents would never detect). One of the most common forms of post-positivism is a philosophy called critical realism. A critical realist believes that there is a reality independent of our thinking about it that science can study. (This is in contrast with a subjectivist who would hold that there is no external reality were each making this all up!). Positivists were also realists. The difference is that the post-positivist critical realist recognizes that all observation is fallible and has error and that all theory is revisable. In other words, the critical realist is critical of our ability to know reality with certainty. Where the positivist believed that the goal of science was to uncover the truth, the post-positivist critical realist believes that the goal of science is to hold steadfastly to the goal of getting it right about reality, even though we can never achieve that goal! Because all measurement is fallible, the post-positivist emphasizes the importance of multiple measures and observations, each of which may possess different types of error, and the need to use triangulation across these multiple errorful sources to try to get a better bead on whats happening in reality. The post-positivist also believes that all observations are theory-laden and that scientists (and everyone else, for that matter) are inherently biased by their cultural experiences, world views, and so on. This is not cause to give up in despair, however. Just because I have my world view based on my experiences and you have yours doesnt mean that we cant hope to translate from each others experiences or understand each other. That is, post-positivism rejects the relativist idea of the incommensurability of different perspectives, the idea that we can never understand each other because we come from different experiences and cultures. Most post-positivists are constructivists who believe that we each construct our view of the world based on our perceptions of it. Because perception and observation is falli ble, our constructions must be imperfect. So what is meant by objectivity in a post-positivist world? Positivists believed that objectivity was a characteristic that resided in the individual scientist. Scientists are responsible for putting aside their biases and beliefs and seeing the world as it really is. Post-positivists reject the idea that any individual can see the world perfectly as it really is. We are all biased and all of our observations are affected (theory-laden). Our best hope for achieving objectivity is to triangulate across multiple fallible perspectives! Thus, objectivity is not the characteristic of an individual, it is inherently a social phenomenon. It is what multiple individuals are trying to achieve when they criticize each others work. We never achieve objectivity perfectly, but we can approach it. The best way for us to improve the objectivity of what we do is to do it within the context of a broader contentious community of truth-seekers (including other scientists) who criticize each others work. The theories that survive such intense scrutiny are a bit like the species that survive in the evolutionary struggle. (This is sometimes called the natural selection theory of knowledge and holds that ideas have survival value and that knowledge evolves through a process of variation, selection and retention). They have adaptive value and are probably as close as our species can come to being objective and understanding reality. Clearly, all of this stuff is not for the faint-of-heart. Ive seen many a graduate student get lost in the maze of philosophical assumptions that contemporary philosophers of science argue about. And dont think that I believe this is not important stuff. But, in the end, I tend to turn pragmatist on these matters. Philosophers have been debating these issues for thousands of years and there is every reason to believe that they will continue to debate them for thousands of years more. Those of us who are practicing scientists should check in on this debate from time to time (perhaps every hundred years or so would be about right). We should think about the assumptions we make about the world when we conduct research. But in the meantime, we cant wait for the philosophers to settle the matter. After all, we do have our own work to do! Positivism Post-Positivism Lets start our very brief discussion of philosophy of science with a simple distinction between epistemology and methodology. The term epistemology comes from the Greek word epistà ªmà ª, their term for knowledge. In simple terms, epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge or of how we come to know. Methodology is also concerned with how we come to know, but is much more practical in nature. Methodology is focused on the specific ways the methods that we can use to try to understand our world better. Epistemology and methodology are intimately related: the former involves the philosophy of how we come to know the world and the latter involves the practice. When most people in our society think about science, they think about some guy in a white lab coat working at a lab bench mixing up chemicals. They think of science as boring, cut-and-dry, and they think of the scientist as narrow-minded and esoteric (the ultimate nerd think of the humorous but nonetheless mad scientist in the Back to the Future movies, for instance). A lot of our stereotypes about science come from a period where science was dominated by a particular philosophy positivism that tended to support some of these views. Here, I want to suggest (no matter what the movie industry may think) that science has moved on in its thinking into an era of post-positivism where many of those stereotypes of the scientist no longer hold up. Lets begin by considering what positivism is. In its broadest sense, positivism is a rejection of metaphysics (I leave it you to look up that term if youre not familiar with it). It is a position that holds that the goal of knowledge is simply to describe the phenomena that we experience. The purpose of science is simply to stick to what we can observe and measure. Knowledge of anything beyond that, a positivist would hold, is impossible. When I think of positivism (and the related philosophy of logical positivism) I think of the behaviorists in mid-20th Century psychology. These were the mythical rat runners who believed that psychology could only study what could be directly observed and measured. Since we cant directly observe emotions, thoughts, etc. (although we may be able to measure some of the physical and physiological accompaniments), these were not legitimate topics for a scientific psychology. B.F. Skinner argued that psychology needed to concentrate only on the positive and negative reinforcers of behavior in order to predict how people will behave everything else in between (like what the person is thinking) is irrelevant because it cant be measured. In a positivist view of the world, science was seen as the way to get at truth, to understand the world well enough so that we might predict and control it. The world and the universe were deterministic they operated by laws of cause and effect that we could discern if we applied the unique approach of the scientific method. Science was largely a mechanistic or mechanical affair. We use deductive reasoning to postulate theories that we can test. Based on the results of our studies, we may learn that our theory doesnt fit the facts well and so we need to revise our theory to better predict reality. The positivist believed in empiricism the idea that observation and measurement was the core of the scientific endeavor. The key approach of the scientific method is the experiment, the attempt to discern natural laws through direct manipulation and observation. OK, I am exaggerating the positivist position (although you may be amazed at how close to this some of them actually came) in order to make a point. Things have changed in our views of science since the middle part of the 20th century. Probably the most important has been our shift away from positivism into what we term post-positivism. By post-positivism, I dont mean a slight adjustment to or revision of the positivist position post-positivism is a wholesale rejection of the central tenets of positivism. A post-positivist might begin by recognizing that the way scientists think and work and the way we think in our everyday life are not distinctly different. Scientific reasoning and common sense reasoning are essentially the same process. There is no difference in kind between the two, only a difference in degree. Scientists, for example, follow specific procedures to assure that observations are verifiable, accurate and consistent. In everyday reasoning, we dont always proceed so c arefully (although, if you think about it, when the stakes are high, even in everyday life we become much more cautious about measurement. Think of the way most responsible parents keep continuous watch over their infants, noticing details that non-parents would never detect). One of the most common forms of post-positivism is a philosophy called critical realism. A critical realist believes that there is a reality independent of our thinking about it that science can study. (This is in contrast with a subjectivist who would hold that there is no external reality were each making this all up!). Positivists were also realists. The difference is that the post-positivist critical realist recognizes that all observation is fallible and has error and that all theory is revisable. In other words, the critical realist is critical of our ability to know reality with certainty. Where the positivist believed that the goal of science was to uncover the truth, the post-positivist critical realist believes that the goal of science is to hold steadfastly to the goal of getting it right about reality, even though we can never achieve that goal! Because all measurement is fallible, the post-positivist emphasizes the importance of multiple measures and observations, each of which may possess different types of error, and the need to use triangulation across these multiple errorful sources to try to get a better bead on whats happening in reality. The post-positivist also believes that all observations are theory-laden and that scientists (and everyone else, for that matter) are inherently biased by their cultural experiences, world views, and so on. This is not cause to give up in despair, however. Just because I have my world view based on my experiences and you have yours doesnt mean that we cant hope to translate from each others experiences or understand each other. That is, post-positivism rejects the relativist idea of the incommensurability of

My Three Key Stages of Life Essay

Everyone has their own key stages of life. They are the most important parts of your life. Mine, is of course when I was born, kindergarten and when I was in Primary 6. Why are they the most important for me? Well, it is all written here, in this essay. Like most of the babies in the world, I was born a healthy baby. Soon enough, I learnt how to crawl, walk, eat, run, and many other things. By the time I finished learning all those, I was already a toddler. It was one of the most important parts of my life. When I was born, I was the heaviest among my siblings and me. As I looked through all my baby photos, I realized I have changed a lot. Though I don’t recall much stuff, the only memories I had as a toddler were two nightmares. Time flies really fast. In the blink of an eye, I was in kindergarten. I studied in â€Å"Bukit Panjang Methodist Church Kindergarten†. I was excited on the first day of school. All those years, I really enjoyed going to school. It was when classes were much more fun with games and interaction between the teachers and students. I remembered during P.E. lessons the students will play in a playground, while a few were chosen to play with a big tub of water. And when the teacher starts to pick people to play with the water, the class usually will get chaotic. The best memory I had was when I celebrated my birthday in school. It was the best birthday present ever. A few years later, I entered primary school. It’s just an ordinary neighborhood primary school, â€Å"Bukit Timah Primary School†. Then it happened. Primary School Leaving Examination dates. Those dates were the dates where I had mixed emotions. They were the dates where I worked my entire primary school life for. It was the most crucial moments. My life depends on it. Whether I will get into a good or a bad school, all depends on those dates. Once you step into that examination hall, there’s no turning back. It wasn’t as bad as I thought. Though the papers were hard, I managed to complete them and the results I got were higher than I expected them to be. I remember during the day the results were out, many students cried when they saw their results. Some were tears of joy, some were tears of sorrow. Well, for me, I didn’t really cry. I only cried after I saw my best friend cried tears of happiness. I cried tears of joy too.

Barn Burning Essay - 2189 Words

Antonio Webb Professor Debra Germany English 2336 14 November 2012 Barn Burning In â€Å"Barn Burning†, a short story by William Faulkner, a boy finds that he can no longer be governed by his father’s ideas and tries to prevent his father from doing further harm, and leaves his family in the process. Sarty Snopes desire is to break away from the moral deficiency of his family life and live life with some resemblance of normalcy even at the expense of never seeing his family again. A growing body of evidence, suggest that humans have a moral sense from the very start of life and family does not instill this moral compass from the very start of life.†¦show more content†¦The Major rides by him on his horse and somewhere up ahead the boy hears a shot and then two more. The constellations wheeled on. It would be dawn and them sun-up after a while and he would be hungry, But that would be to-morrow and now he was only cold, and walking would cure that. His breathing was easier asleep because he knew it was almost dawn, the night al most over. He could tell that from the whippoorwills. They were everywhere now among the dark trees below them. He got up. He was a little stiff, but walking would cure that too as it would the cold, and soon there would be the sun. He went on down the hill, toward the dark woods within which the liquid silver voices of the birds called unceasing –the rapid and urgent beating of the urgent and quiring heart of the late spring night. He did not look back. (Baym,Nina) He knows that his father is torn between love and righteousness and feels sorrow for his father but knows in his heart he can longer live this way of life. While the story never mentions his age, Barn Burning is a sad story of a young mans life who knew what was right and wrong and does what has to be done in the end as conscious would not allow him to continue with his fathers way of life. However this story illustrates how morality is not developed within the family, but something that is instilled within us all in the first early years of life.Show MoreRelatedEssay Barn Burning1481 Words   |  6 PagesIn â€Å"Barn Burning,† the author, William Faulkner, composes a wonderful story about a poor boy who lives in anxiety, despair, and fear. He introduces us to Colonel Satoris Snopes, or Sarty, a boy who is mature beyond his years. Due to the harsh circumstances of life, Sarty must choose between justice and his family. At a tender age of ten, Sarty starts to believe his integrity will help him make the right choices. His loyalty to family doesn’t allow for him to understand why he warns the De SpainRead MoreBarn Burning Essay1889 Words   |  8 PagesIn William Faulkner’s â€Å"Barn Burning† Colonel Sartoris Snopes must decide either to stand with his father and compromise his integrity, or embrace honesty and morality and condemn his family. This is a difficult decision to make, especially for a ten year old boy that has nothing outside of what his father pr ovides. Sarty’s decision to ultimately betray his father is dependent on his observation of Abner’s character and the conflict he feels concerning Abner. â€Å"Barn Burning† opens with a trial inRead More Barn Burning Essay571 Words   |  3 PagesBarn Burning â€Å"Barn Burning† by William Faulkner was written in the ebb of the 1930’s in a decade of social, economic, and cultural decline. This story offers insight into the past years for students to learn of the nation and the South. This story shows the racial segregation that took place in these times between the white landowners and white tenant farmers, the blacks and the whites, and the poor white trash class and the blacks. The Snopes’s family was in the social class ofRead More Barn Burning Essay773 Words   |  4 PagesBarn Burning Barn Burning is a sad story because it very clearly shows the classical struggle between the privileged and the underprivileged classes. Time after time emotions of despair surface from both the protagonist and the antagonist involved in the story. This story outlines two distinct protagonists and two distinct antagonists. The first two are Colonel Sartoris Snopes (Sarty) and his father Abner Snopes (Ab). Sarty is the protagonist surrounded by his fatherRead More Barn Burning Essay1110 Words   |  5 Pages Barn Burning amp;quot;You’re getting to be a man. You got to learn. You got to learn to stick to your own blood or you ain’t going to have any blood to stick to you.amp;quot; This quote from William Faulkner’s amp;quot;Barn Burningamp;quot; does reveal a central issue in the story, as Jane Hiles suggests in her interpretation. The story is about blood ties, but more specifically, how these ties affect Sarty (the central character of the story). The story examines the internal conflict and dilemmaRead MoreEssay On Barn Burning879 Words   |  4 PagesWhy are children so loyal to their parents, even if their parents do not meet the moral standards of the child? Throughout the text of â€Å"Barn Burning†, Sarty seems to have repetitive feelings of grief and despair, yet he hesitates to out his father for his crimes. He hates his father’s crimes and his father’s way of life. Yet, Sarty is hesitant to out his father for his crimes. Mainly beca use he hopes his father will change, he fears his father will harm him physically or emotionally, and he placesRead MoreBarn Burning By William Faulkner935 Words   |  4 Pages William Faulkner’s â€Å"Barn Burning,† is about a southern white family that resides in a rural county in Mississippi. The low-income family members are the mother Lennie Snopes, the older brother, two sisters, and an aunt. The story’s main characters are, Colonel Sartoris Snopes, a 10- year-old boy, the father Abner Snopes, the property owner Abner’s boss Major de Spain, and his wife, Mrs. Lula de Spain. Abner Snopes characterized as the antagonist, and Faulkner describes him as an evil, vengeful manRead MoreBarn Burning By William Faulkner1373 Words   |  6 PagesWilliam Faulkner’s short story â€Å"Barn Burning† is an epic exhibition of the author’s style. In the story, Faulkner shows us the story of Colonel Sartoris Snopes regarding his want for good and his loyalty to his family. Throughout the story, Sarty is put in a position of having to struggle between his integrity and his want to defend his father and family. In â€Å"B arn Burning,† a struggle is displayed by Sarty Snopes between his want to do right and his want to honor his father. The reader gets theRead MoreBarn Burning By William Faulkner1357 Words   |  6 PagesHenry Award winning short story, â€Å"Barn Burning† was written in 1938 and published by Harper’s in 1939 (â€Å"William,† par. 12). In many ways the story is a product of â€Å"both a turbulent time in America’s history and Faulkner’s personal history† (Parker 101). America was emerging from the Great Depression just in time to see World War II looming on the horizon while Faulkner was struggling with â€Å"finances, a drinking problem, and a new mistress† (Parker 102). In â€Å"Barn Burning† Faulkner makes extensive useRead MoreBarn Burning by William Faulkner682 Words   |  3 PagesWilliam Faulkner’s Barn Burning, Abner Snopes is a main character and father of Colonel Sartoris Snopes (Sarty), who is also a main character. Abner is a very poor looking man, unclean and unshaven. He always seems to wear the same thing, a dirty wh ite button up shirt with a dirty black hat and coat. Snopes is a very terrifying figure, often controlling his family with physical and psychological violence as well as making them contribute to his favorite pastime, burning barns. The Snopes family

Carl Gustav and Sigmund Freud on Human Nature and...

Human Nature: Though Carl Gustav Jung was a colleague, friend, and the presumed successor of Sigmund Freud, their views on human nature drifted further and further apart as Jung grew intellectually. While they were both psychoanalysts, in the end their views on human nature were practically antithetical. Freud viewed human nature deterministically, and postulated that human motivation was grounded in unconscious biological urges for sexual satiation. Freud strongly emphasized the development that occurred during childhood and attempted to explain this development using his five stage theory–oral, anal, genital, latent, phallic—of psychosexual development. For the sake of brevity the stages will not discussed individually however, it is important to note that each stage was characterized by an erogenous zone, which correlated with Freud’s idea of sexual energy as a guiding force in development. Jung, on the other hand, became theoretically rooted in spirituality and mysticism, and as a result of splitting from Freud, he developed the school of psychology known as analytical psychology. In stark contrast to Freud, Jung emphasized the second half of ones life and developed a more existential approach due to his emphasis on the importance of the meaning that once ascribes to their life. In order to develop appropriate at this juncture, Jung determined that during this later stage of life one must first let go of behaviors that molded the first half of one’s life, and then