A Realist Philosophy of Social Science

Writing Assignment #1
Student Full Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Full Title
Instructor Full Name
Due Date
Writing Assignment #1
In introducing Peter Manicas's A Realist Philosophy of Social Science, he proposes a methodical philosophy of the social sciences using a realist outlook. He endeavors to show for both the natural sciences and social sciences that reason and comprehension are intertwined and coexist together. This is a critical proposition given the argument's significance on whether particular types of modern sociology only explain or understand. This essay will respond to the sociopolitical concepts and dynamics presented in Manicas's work.
The likelihood of a sociological justification and reconstruction of human purpose and action has been the source of much criticism. The languages and ideas that social scientists apply to explain the standard features of social life like values, practices, conventions, etcetera have no reasonableness because they lack any causal force that can be understood theoretically. Manica can be viewed as making the same fundamental criticism of sociological methodology. However, unlike other critiques, he does not suggest the familiar broad quantitative data sets, explain action forms, or even attempt to describe how behavior is an appropriate method of sociological analysis. Instead, he reevaluates the issues of reason and comprehension from a realist perspective. He believes that social science is attained (just like in physical sciences) through a causal mechanism. However, unlike a physical science perspective, causal social mechanisms constitute minded individuals using materials at hand.
The author states that despite the general dissatisfaction with the deductive-nomological model, there has been no consensus about what model should replace the covering law model. Therefore, it is challenging to follow the ideas Manica posits, although he outlines the likenesses between natural and social sciences in the beginning chapters. He argues that social sciences can borrow the formula used by natural sciences to build their approaches, mainly because most of these sciences do not intend to estimate but explain and understand. This is not to say that natural and social sciences are similar in their aims: the former focuses on studying natural phenomena while the other aims at investigating social structures, institutions, and relations, which typically coexist rather than occurring independently. This proposition has some merit given that both sciences entail categorizing generative devices of consequences. Therefore, the method by which natural sciences build their approaches can be replicated in social sciences.
Neither natural sciences nor social sciences are focused on accurate estimation or forecasting single cases. Manica's example of Weber's boulder, which falls off a cliff and disintegrates into countless fragments, serves to illustrate how science is not interested in predicting single events (the number of fragments or even where they land) but instead in explaining and describing public events (the direction and speed of fall). Indeed, science does not explain individual concrete cases since most events result from an intricate nexus of numerous causa...