Social Science Theories and Methods

Author: Translator: Ren Xiao et al. / Country: Norway
Publisher:
Publishing Date: 2002-06-01
Features:
III. Background We can view hermeneutics from various perspectives, such as theological, philosophical, legal, innovative, or romantic. As one of the methods of interpretation, hermeneutics holds a special position in theology and law. These disciplines are called dogmatic because researchers cannot freely choose their own stance; they are constrained not only by the limitations of the subject itself but also by the so-called authoritative views on the topic. Theologians are bound by the authoritative interpretations of dogma, and judges must act according to the legislator's understanding of the law, i.e., the so-called true interpretation of the law. As an interpretive method, hermeneutics has existed since ancient times, when a hierarchical worldview prevailed—one that existed before the time of Descartes (1596—1650) and Copernicus (1473—1543). At that time, science, thought, and philosophy were dominated by the Church and feudal dynasties. The concept of the hermeneutic circle can be traced back to Schleiermacher (1768—1834). In Schleiermacher's view, the hermeneutic circle was a necessary method for empirical interpretation, which could be used to interpret classic works such as Plato's Dialogues and the New Testament. After Schleiermacher, hermeneutics as a scientific method became particularly common in 19th-century German historicalism writings. The goal of German historicalism was to identify what truly belonged to Germany in the realms of language, law, and culture. In the early 19th century, a new research trend focusing on phenomenology emerged in German scientific research, which ultimately led to hermeneutic methods and cultural interpretation. Two core figures in this process were Heidegger (1889—1976) and Gadamer (born 1900). It was Heidegger who developed hermeneutics and the hermeneutic circle into a universal philosophical method, which, in principle, could be detached from the narrow field of text interpretation. Due to the ideological connection between hermeneutics and the formation of the German nation-state, and not to mention Heidegger's open support of the Nazi regime, such issues were not taken seriously again until the 1960s. On the classical theory of knowledge, Heidegger and Gadamer represent a radical departure from the classical theory of knowledge. The starting point of this theory is the question of whether it is possible to acquire credible knowledge about the external world. According to this classical theory, existing knowledge must first undergo critical analysis; subsequently, the limitations and possibilities of human cognition must also be analyzed. Moreover, clear interdisciplinary standards must be established to determine what constitutes reliable knowledge and what does not. Such interdisciplinary standards allow those who can fully control their senses to understand things in the same way. A characteristic of continuous reasoning is that unverified propositions cannot be used as part of the argument, as doing so would lead to circular reasoning. Scientific knowledge should be derived from axioms that do not require proof or from induction based on specific assumptions. These reliable scientific methods provide us with cumulative knowledge about the objective world. In the scientific program designed in Auguste Comte's (1789—1857) On Positive Philosophy, this cumulative knowledge perspective is particularly emphasized; in the 1920s, the empiricists of the Vienna Circle (Vienna Circle) elevated this perspective above all else.
Background, Circle, and Bias
Hermeneutic methods oppose the view that people can be detached from their historical, cultural, and scientific backgrounds. However, the view that people are thus confined to their backgrounds not only deviates from the epistemological procedures of logical empiricists but also contradicts the entire modern philosophy of knowledge inherited from Descartes. In Heidegger's view, the notion that science grows from tradition is itself a product of the scientific tradition. Scientific cognition is merely a model that helps us understand the real world. In Heidegger's eyes, the value of this model is equal to other methods by which people come to know the real world, such as religious interpretations of reality. From the perspective of the classical theory of knowledge, the hermeneutic circle has two distinctive features: the concept of the circle and the concept of prejudice. The classical theory of knowledge uses basic logical ideas to prevent tautology, for example, when defining "worker (worker)," the term "work (work)" cannot be used again (i.e., one cannot say "a worker is a person who works"). The circularity in hermeneutics has positive epistemological value because it is precisely this circular structure ("pendulum movement") that allows people to understand the interaction between individual cognitions in different social and historical environments. From the perspective of new hermeneutics, individual cognitions must be combined with social and historical contexts. In hermeneutics, the concept of prejudice (inclination, basic attitude) also has positive and constructive value. Compared to the philosophical views of Descartes and Kant, this represents a radical departure, as the former emphasized that people must free themselves from prejudice in their pursuit of truth. The concept of prejudice in legal terms comes from legal terminology. In law, prejudice means reaching a conclusion about a case before initiating legal proceedings and before the court makes a lawful judgment. The judgment of the court has two characteristics that ensure its legitimacy and reflect its logical features. , the contradiction principle (contradiction principle) means that the issue must be fully clarified. Second, during the case proceedings, the accused must be considered innocent until the judgment is rendered. From a legal perspective, the concept of prejudice undoubtedly violates both of these principles. The decision is made before the court judgment, i.e., the judgment is rendered in advance, which is by no means a legal decision. In short, from the perspective of common sense about justice that people firmly believe in, this is illegal. In Kant's view, lawful cognition is the result of adhering to judicial procedures, while unlawful cognition is obtained without a deliberative procedure (Doublet 1989, p. 26). When Heidegger and Gadamer point out that people's cognitions are generally prior to deliberative procedures, i.e., "prejudice," it means that traditionally considered unlawful cognitions are actually unavoidable (and will inevitably occupy a place in lawful procedures). This view challenges traditional epistemology, which holds that human cognition is based on deliberative procedures between the cognizing subjects. But in Heidegger and Gadamer's view, fundamental human cognition, the true decision, exists prior to this procedure. At this fundamental point, the hermeneutic circle is at odds with the optimistic, classical epistemological view of knowledge. Moreover, the role of deliberation as a tool for subjects to seek truth is thereby reduced. Individuals are not born with the tendency to debate, and their views and perspectives are not determined by tradition. The hermeneutic circle thus holds that knowledge is not obtained through some procedure but already exists in our minds before we begin those logical and epistemological procedures. Philosopher Karl Popper also proposed a similar view when opposing the method of induction. He argued that before seeking proof, people already have theories. Thus, there is no logically sustainable method of deducing theories from empirical knowledge (Popper and Eccles 1977).
Nevertheless, the concept of the hermeneutic circle does not necessarily hold a pessimistic view of the possibility of people's cognition of knowledge. It merely expresses a degree of skepticism toward the efforts of natural scientists and other conquerors of the real world to transform the world according to mathematical formulas and scientific procedures (?Gelassenheit“).
IV. Formulated Expression—Quasi-Exact Definition
Aside from the circle and prejudice, the most core concept in hermeneutic thought is the relationship between the whole and the part. This relationship involves the conditions of interaction and can be explained by the hermeneutic pendulum or circular movement. In the following chart, we attempt to illustrate this pendulum movement with the example of interpreting written text. The parts of the text are composed of words used to form sentences, which in turn are used to form chapters, ultimately forming a whole—the book. The interpretation of the text proceeds word by word "forward," but to understand the semantics of the text being read, a "backward" interpretation process is also necessary. For example, taken individually, a word in a poem usually has no actual meaning, just as a line of poetry does. The reader must read through the entire text in order to understand the words in context and ensure that the context of the article is reasonable in relation to the overall context of the article. The overall context, in turn, is determined by the prevailing language rules, social values, and standards of the society at the time. All these interpretation processes constitute a circle, i.e., a social and historical context. Thus, understanding the parts requires grasping the whole, and through the description of the whole, we can understand the parts in a deeper sense. In short, this is a matter of understanding things based on context, and the context enriches and expands our knowledge of specific parts. Conversely, the deeper our understanding of specific parts within a particular contextual framework, the stronger our ability to distinguish subtle differences within that framework. This is the circular movement between the whole and the part that Heidegger and Gadamer described, although this movement is not logical but hermeneutic. This means that cognition is not always expanded, but its characteristics change with each circular movement in the process of understanding. Adam Smith's research method on market equilibrium and prices is one of his most important achievements. He demonstrated from several aspects how the behavior of consumers and producers determines prices. Among the main interpretations of Adam Smith's price and wage theory and the theory of the invisible hand, the most famous is the market cross. The existing market price will be the price at which supply and demand are balanced, as well as the price at which buyers and sellers reach an agreement on the quantity of transactions. In a perfectly competitive market, all demands can be met at this existing price. At the same time, each individual participant, whether buyer or seller, is too weak to influence the price. However, the price remains the price that completes all necessary trades. If those individual traders are left unchecked, one would expect to see chaos. But, on the contrary, when no one wants to change this state, equilibrium is established. This is the result of the "invisible hand." Let us use the following chart to examine the relevant mechanisms. In the chart, the vertical axis represents price P, and the horizontal axis represents quantity Q. As usual, we assume that the lower the price, the greater the quantity demanded by consumers. Therefore, the demand curve D0 is downward sloping. The upward-sloping curves S0, S1, and S2 are three supply curves. An increase in production also increases supply, but marginal costs also rise. This explains why the curves are downward sloping.
Conclusion Contrary to the health care law of diminishing returns, it focuses on mechanisms that are completely opposite to the priority of attributes in the provision of health care systems. There is sufficient research to confirm the trend pointed out by Hart, but in Norway, the overall pattern has not been discussed or established to a significant extent—a research goal. Although several excellent studies have recently been published (Dahl 1988, Otterstad 1988), there has been almost no research plan on Hart's law of diminishing returns in health care. Future research plans should strive to construct studies such as whether the social distribution of diseases in Norway aligns with Hart's law, and whether the health care system should expand in response to people's needs. Sociologist Margaret Stacey has long been concerned with the British system. Her view is that "stage 2" should be determined as the development of public health. "Stage 1" can now be summarized as the allocation of sufficient resources and personnel to health care. Stage 2 focuses on creating an organization and culture that can ensure the resolution of social inequalities according to the priorities of needs (Stacey 1986). Interest in the law of diminishing returns in health care may stem from an implicit desire to take seriously the political and formal goals of the welfare state and public health care system. The law (and my interpretation) also comes from the pursuit of social equalization, which is explicitly rooted in the concepts of civil rights, human rights, socialism, or social democracy. From a more cynical and pragmatic liberal perspective, the law is not interesting. It merely indicates that the strongest individuals in society not only have better health but also manage to obtain the best health care, just as they manage to obtain almost every good thing. If we move beyond this pessimistic pragmatism and adopt a positive liberal social Darwinist perspective, we would recognize the law as a view of a well-functioning society where the strong and healthy receive the most, which aligns with general norms and values and represents the best interests of society.