Formal arguments are usually lateral, not always move things substantially and, in general, are more difficult to make the arguments (and statements) informal normally do in Sociología.Pero have a great advantage, which I think is crucial. Avoid this kind of thing:
During utilitarianism and criticize these approaches attempts to explain altruism, Hans Joas and Wolfgang Kobla in 'Social Theory. Twenty Introductory Lectures' say the following regarding altruism in biology
The answer theses scholares That Came up in almos identical WAS structured way, in That They Believe it possible to affirm That always Aries Such altruistic Behavior Increases Where It married in the 'reproductive fitness' of the species, at least in the long term. Once again, altruism Was' Elegantly Trac genetic back to egotism. None of this is terribly persuasive '(page 105)
Now, as part of the differences is that biologists formalized the argument in a model, it is completely irrelevant if someone seems "terribly persuasive." The argument works and is well constructed (and in general, the terms are relatively well defined so it is not necessary to reproductive fitness in quotation marks), and obtain results in the conclusion. If I criticize something I have to do more than simply saying 'none of this is terribly persuasive 'need to prove that the argument does not work (ie that their premises are wrong, that the connections are not sufficiently well done) or empirically show that it is not the case (well, it happens that on such and such species ...) .
But, of course, that means real work to develop theory and not just stay in the 'I think ...'.
0 comments:
Post a Comment