EPISTEMOLOGY AND SOCTAL SCIENCE F, Bergmann 1s a physics of soctal phencvena possible? Soue say yes, but Bot yet, not now, only in a renote future. Others say no, and list various imeding factors: too many variables, no controlled experi- sents, hunan freedon, the phenenenon of self-verification, uniqueness, ‘the absence of laws, and so forth. Both answers are inadequate, almost conta: tf ca the sti of tin pchlan. Consider, as a prelininary exercise, a surface difference betveen explanation in physical science and explanation in sociology and psycho- Joay. Take the standard positivist example of a glass of water that racks vhon the water in it freezes to ice. compare the uneducated, ‘compon sense account of this event with the full explanation science enables us to give. The difference is very large. the scientific ex- planation introduces general laws concerning the expansion of volumes, ‘the related pressures, the stress-Linits of various materials and even- tually rave on the main boty of solecular theory. On the positivistic interpretation of science the lave together with the antecedent eir- ‘cumstances yield ideally a rigorous prediction. Here the sheer adéed quantity of information is enormous, the advance beyond the level of somone who had never heard of sclence is very ispressive. The picture ‘that poychology presents is radically different. For our purposes it will be isportant that the sterting point fe here much higher. Any normal Person can offer a very complex and very informative explanation of his om fon other people's: actions. (Motives, intentions, reasons, emotions, etc.)This ia not at all Like with the broken glass. Inagine a question Like: Why aid Creon condem Antigons to death? The Linits of what could here be said are nostly dram by patience and by convenience. If we had full knowledge of Creon's Life (1f he were: not a character in a play) we could mention indefinitely many relevant antecedent facts and the ‘enumeration of motives and reasons would take us from "reasons of state!” and political philesophy to the sources of Ms personal etubbernness and pride. The uneducated explanation is here far core poserful (on a much higher evel) than vhen we, dest with nature. In sone sense, especially when we deal with simple cases Like: Why did you nove your rock? ~ because the pawn would have taken it, the explanation seens even "complete.’ The contrast to the generalizations of social science {s startling. Take the thesis that all behavior moves in the direction of reduced tension, To say this about Creon ~ that he was trying to relax ~ seers far less informative than vhat we ean say without science. And we can dispense with caricature. The Frustration-Aggression thesis presents an analo- gous picture. Why did he attack? - to relieve frustration. Again it seems that we can do mich better then this without scientific psychology. ‘And sociology shows a similar pattern. Compare any good historical account of the outbreak of World War I with the notion that "ware result from an imbalance of power.” The sociological generalization does net amplify our understanding of the Individual case. It represents a decline, @ lovering of the level of information. No conclusions should be dram from this. We only want to raise several questions: Why ie our ordinary know= edge in the domain the social sciences address so much more powerful than ‘the unscientific knowledge we have of the material world? What are the implications of this for the conduct of the social sciences? How can we‘ereate a social science that is not less but more informative than comon sense knowledge? Tu Models of Mind The ultimate founda #1 of our inherited conception of science and of ite tasks ie certata ow of mind, of consciousness an a contain manner of conceptualizing the relationship that mind te matter ad to ‘the external world. This soe of mind can be expl ned most conveniently {f we start from the problem of pereaption. How aid this question arise? There is to begin with an cbject “out there." It senés 2 nessage consisting of Light-waves or of other vaves, and we receive this message with a sense organ, say with our eyes. In the eye a series of complicated events occur thet are fairly well understood. Then the message {2 sent from the eyes ‘through the optic nerve into the brain. Tare it is tranenitted to a specific place, and by now we know an amazing amount about the events that occur in ths spot. That is, we know what chenical and electric changes take place. But another side of vhat happens in this location in the Drain is thought to be very aysterious, and even very up-to-date dis- ewssions of brain physiology adnit to utter bafflenent vhen it cones to that other aide. For it is assumed that the chenical and electric pro- cesses in the brain through a kind of netanorphosis, or traneformation - through sonething that indeed 1s completely mysterious and not at all wnderstood ~ give rise to consciousness, to the image that we perceive. and indeed the problen is baffling: we can igolate the minute notion of em electrical charge, or the change from one acid into another and this, Aecocuous process is suppeaed to produce ay inage of this chair. And the situation is thought to be the same in the case of our thoughts, and our