# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Introduction | History of Logical Positivism | Criticisms of Logical Positivism

Logical Positivism (later also known as Logical Empiricism) is a theory in Epistemology and Logic that developed out of Positivism and the early Analytic Philosophy movement, and which campaigned for a systematic reduction of all human knowledge to logical and scientific foundations. Thus, a statement is meaningful only if it is either purely formal (essentially, mathematics and logic) or capable of empirical verification.

This effectively resulted in an almost complete rejection by Logical Positivists of Metaphysics (and to a large extent Ethics) on the grounds that it is unverifiable. Its influence in 20th Century Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, however, has been profound.

Most early Logical Positivists asserted that all knowledge is based on logical inference from simple "protocol sentences" grounded in observable facts. They supported forms of Materialism, Naturalism and Empiricism, and, in particular, they strongly supported the verifiability criterion of meaning ( Verificationism), the doctrine that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false.

Logical Positivism was also committed to the idea of "Unified Science", or the development of a common language in which all scientific propositions can be expressed, usually by means of various "reductions" or "explications" of the terms of one science to the terms of another (putatively more fundamental) one.

The main tenets of the doctrine include:

The opposition to all Metaphysics, especially ontology (the study of reality and the nature of being), not as necessarily wrong but as having no meaning.

The rejection of synthetic a priori propositions (e.g. "All bachelors are happy"), which are, by their nature, unverifiable (as opposed to analytic statements, which are true simply by virtue of their meanings e.g. "All bachelors are unmarried").

A criterion of meaning based on Ludwig Wittgenstein's early work, (essentially, that the meaning of a word is its use in the language, and that thoughts, and the language used to express those thoughts, are pictures or representations of how things are in the world).

The idea that all knowledge should be codifiable in a single standard language of science, and the associated ongoing project of "rational reconstruction", in which ordinary-language concepts were gradually to be replaced by more precise equivalents in that standard language.

The most important early figures in Logical Positivism were the Bohemian-Austrian Positivist philosopher Ernst Mach (1838 - 1916) and the Austrian Ludwig Wittgenstein (especially his "Tractatus" of 1921, a text of great importance for Logical Positivists).

Logical Positivism in Germany rose in response to the Metaphysics of Georg Hegel, which was the dominant philosophical view in Germany at the time, particularly the rejection of his concept of metaphysical entities that did not have any empirical basis.

It grew from the discussions of the so-called "Vienna Circle" of Moritz Schlick (1882 - 1936) in the early 20th Century. A 1929 pamphlet jointly written by Otto Neurath (1882 - 1945), Hans Hahn (1979 - 1934) and Rudolf Carnap (1891 - 1970) brought together some of the major proponents of the movement and summarized the doctrines of the Vienna Circle at that time. The contemporaneous Berlin Circle of Hans Reichenbach (1891 - 1953) also propagated the new doctrines more widely in the 1920s and early 1930s.

A. J. Ayer is considered responsible for the spread of Logical Positivism to Britain, and his 1936 book "Language, Truth and Logic" was very influential. Developments in logic and the foundations of mathematics, especially in the "Principia Mathematica" by the British philosophers Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead, particularly impressed the more mathematically-minded Logical Positivists.

The movement dispersed in the late 1930's, mainly because of political upheaval and the untimely deaths of Hahn and Schlick. Logical Positivism was essential to the development of early Analytic Philosophy, with which it effectively merged.

There were many internal arguments within the Logical Positivism movement, which in reality was only ever a loose collective of philosophers holding a wide range of beliefs on many matters, although with certain principles in common.

Critics have argued that Logical Positivism's insistence on the strict adoption of the verifiability criterion of meaning (the requirement for a non-analytic, meaningful sentence to be either verifiable or falsifiable) is problematic, as the criterion itself is unverifiable, especially for negative existential claims and positive universal claims.

Karl Popper (1902 - 1994) disagreed with the logical positivist position that metaphysical statements must be meaningless, and further argued that a metaphysical statement can change its unfalsifiable status over time - what may be "unfalsifiable" in one century may become "falsifiable" (and thus "scientific") in another.

A. J. Ayer responded to the charge of unverifiability by claiming that, although almost any statement (except a tautology or logical truth) is unverifiable in the strong sense, there is a weak sense of verifiability in which a proposition is verifiable if it is possible for experience to render it probable. This defense, however, was controversial among Logical Positivists, some of whom stuck to strong verification, and insisted that general propositions were indeed nonsense.

Hilary Putnam (1926 - ) has argued that making a distinction between "observational" and "theoretical" is meaningless. W. V. O. Quine has criticized the distinction between analytic and synthetic statements, and the reduction of meaningful statements to immediate experience. Thomas Kuhn (1922 - 1996) has argued that it is just not possible to provide truth conditions for science, independent of its historical paradigm.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Logical Positivism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Philosophy: Epistemology > Logical Positivism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Theory of science and methodology are the pillars on which a social scientist stand when conducting research. Succinctly stated, ontology can be said to be the study of reality, or simply the science or philosophy of being, while epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge.
The former is concerned with the nature of being, while the latter deals with the nature and scope of knowledge. Your ontological position is decisive for the logic behind the methods scientists employ.

There are two main scientific traditions, and you as a student of the social sciences choose one of these based on your ontological position. These are positivism and constructivism, and are decisive for the logic for which you base your choice of methods on (this logic is called methodology).
Positivism
Positivism in general refers to philosophical positions that emphasize empirical data and scientific methods. This tradition holds that the world consists of regularities, that these regularities are detectable, and, thus, that the researcher can infer knowledge about the real world by observing it. The researcher should be more concerned with general rules than with explaining the particular.

This tradition can be traced back to Galileo Galilei (1564-1642). In his work Siderius Nuncius (The Starry Messenger) (1610) he made systematic observations of the Moon, the stars, and the moons of Jupiter. His methods stood in contrast to the prevailing approach of that time, that advocated by Aristotle and the Church.

In the same century Francis Bacon introduced a combination of induction and experiment into science as he wished to combine experience with record keeping, and thus rejected the deductive method of the time. Francis Bacon, and later John Locke and David Hume, provided the basic framework for the modern naturalist tradition.

Based on their works theorists have found fuel to their claim that there exists a real world independent of our senses. Modern scientists following the naturalist tradition argue that the regularities of this real world can be experienced through systematic sense perceptions.

Auguste Comte (1798-1857) is regarded as one of the founders of modern sociology. He coined the term sociologie, derived from the Latin words socius (companion) and -ology (science). Comte's epistemological argument was consistent with that of his naturalist predecessors, that is, scientific knowledge about the real world comes from empirical observation. He also drew a distinction between empirical and normative knowledge. Information or knowledge that was not empirical was not considered by Comte to be knowledge about the real world, and thus fell outside the scope of science.
Methodology - The Hierarchy of Methods
The positivist tradition permits the scientist to choose from a certain "tool box" of methods when investigating the real world. This is denoted as the methodology of the discipline, and consists of its methods, rules, and postulates.

Methodology can be understood as the logic behind the methods we chose, that is, the choice of analytical strategy and research design which underpins substantive research.

A positivist approach provides us with a hierarchy of methods. Experiments are considered ideal because of their ability to determine causality. However, this method is often difficult to employ in the social sciences due to practical and ethical issues.

Statistics is a second best approach, well-suited for making generalizations. Comparative methods, as well as case studies are primarily used for theory testing/building.
Further Reading
Hay, Colin (2002). Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

Moses, Jonathon W. & Torbjørn L. Knutsen (2012). Ways of Knowing: Competing Methodologies in Social and Political Research. 2 nd ed. New York: Palgrave.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Tor G. Jakobsen Theory of science and methodology are the pillars on which a social scientist stand when conducting research. Succinctly stated, ontology can be said to be the study of reality, or simply the science or philosophy of being, while epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Contributors

Key Concepts

A reaction to didactic approaches such as behaviorism and programmed instruction, constructivism states that learning is an active, contextualized process of constructing knowledge rather than acquiring it. Knowledge is constructed based on personal experiences and hypotheses of the environment. Learners continuously test these hypotheses through social negotiation. Each person has a different interpretation and construction of knowledge process. The learner is not a blank slate (tabula rasa) but brings past experiences and cultural factors to a situation[3][4].

NOTE: A common misunderstanding regarding constructivism is that instructors should never tell students anything directly but, instead, should always allow them to construct knowledge for themselves. This is actually confusing a theory of pedagogy (teaching) with a theory of knowing. Constructivism assumes that all knowledge is constructed from the learner's previous knowledge, regardless of how one is taught. Thus, even listening to a lecture involves active attempts to construct new knowledge.

Vygotsky's social development theory is one of the foundations for constructivism.

Additional Resources and References

Resources

References

1. Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.

2. Piaget, J. (2013). The construction of reality in the child (Vol. 82). Routledge.

3. Ertmer, P. A., & Newby, T. J. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective.Performance improvement quarterly, 6(4), 50-72.

4. Cooper, P. A. (1993). Paradigm Shifts in Designed Instruction: From Behaviorism to Cognitivism to Constructivism. Educational technology, 33(5), 12-19.

[cite]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Key Concepts A reaction to didactic approaches such as behaviorism and programmed instruction, constructivism states that learning is an active, contextualized process of constructing knowledge rather than acquiring it. Knowledge is constructed based on personal experiences and hypotheses of the environment. Learners continuously test these hypotheses through social negotiation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Angelo State University - Library Online Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unauthorized use is prohibited; Usage may be subject to security testing and monitoring; Misuse is subject to criminal prosecution; No expectation of privacy except as otherwise provided by applicable privacy laws.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 1909, Taylor published " The Principles of Scientific Management." [1] In this, he proposed that by optimizing and simplifying jobs, productivity would increase. He also advanced the idea that workers and managers needed to cooperate with one another. This was very different from the way work was typically done in businesses beforehand. A factory manager at that time had very little contact with the workers, and he left them on their own to produce the necessary product. There was no standardization, and a worker's main motivation was often continued employment, so there was no incentive to work as quickly or as efficiently as possible.

Taylor believed that all workers were motivated by money, so he promoted the idea of "a fair day's pay for a fair day's work." In other words, if a worker didn't achieve enough in a day, he didn't deserve to be paid as much as another worker who was highly productive.

With a background in mechanical engineering, Taylor was very interested in efficiency. While advancing his career at a U.S. steel manufacturer, he designed workplace experiments to determine optimal performance levels. In one, he experimented with shovel design until he had a design that would allow workers to shovel for several hours straight. With bricklayers, he experimented with the various motions required and developed an efficient way to lay bricks. And he applied the scientific method to study the optimal way to do any type of workplace task. As such, he found that by calculating the time needed for the various elements of a task, he could develop the "best" way to complete that task.

These "time and motion" studies also led Taylor to conclude that certain people could work more efficiently than others. These were the people whom managers should seek to hire where possible. Therefore, selecting the right people for the job was another important part of workplace efficiency. Taking what he learned from these workplace experiments, Taylor developed four principles of scientific management. These principles are also known simply as "Taylorism".

Four Principles of Scientific Management

Taylor's four principles are as follows:

1. Replace working by "rule of thumb," or simple habit and common sense, and instead use the scientific method to study work and determine the most efficient way to perform specific tasks.

2. Rather than simply assign workers to just any job, match workers to their jobs based on capability and motivation, and train them to work at maximum efficiency.

3. Monitor worker performance, and provide instructions and supervision to ensure that they're using the most efficient ways of working.

4. Allocate the work between managers and workers so that the managers spend their time planning and training, allowing the workers to perform their tasks efficiently.

Critiques of Taylorism

Taylor's Scientific Management Theory promotes the idea that there is "one right way" to do something. As such, it is at odds with current approaches such as MBO (Management By Objectives), Continuous Improvement initiatives, BPR (Business Process Reengineering), and other tools like them. These promote individual responsibility, and seek to push decision making through all levels of the organization.

The idea here is that workers are given as much autonomy as practically possible, so that they can use the most appropriate approaches for the situation at hand. (Reflect here on your own experience - are you happier and more motivated when you're following tightly controlled procedures, or when you're working using your own judgment?) What's more, front line workers need to show this sort of flexibility in a rapidly-changing environment. Rigid, rules-driven organizations really struggle to adapt in these situations.

Teamwork is another area where pure Taylorism is in opposition to current practice. Essentially, Taylorism breaks tasks down into tiny steps, and focuses on how each person can do his or her specific series of steps best. Modern methodologies prefer to examine work systems more holistically in order to evaluate efficiency and maximize productivity. The extreme specialization that Taylorism promotes is contrary to modern ideals of how to provide a motivating and satisfying workplace.

Where Taylorism separates manual from mental work, modern productivity enhancement practices seek to incorporate worker's ideas, experience and knowledge into best practice. Scientific management in its pure form focuses too much on the mechanics, and fails to value the people side of work, whereby motivation and workplace satisfaction are key elements in an efficient and productive organization.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Frederick Taylor and Scientific Management - Understanding Taylorism and Early Management Theory

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1909, Taylor published " The Principles of Scientific Management." [1] In this, he proposed that by optimizing and simplifying jobs, productivity would increase. He also advanced the idea that workers and managers needed to cooperate with one another. This was very different from the way work was typically done in businesses beforehand.