Introduction
This paper explores positivist political philosophy’s ontological and epistemological foundations while emphasizing behavior analysis. According to the positivist line of theory, information is only truly acquired through exposure and an understanding of the relationships and traits of natural occurrences, even when this includes occasionally inaccurate knowledge. Thus, the only basis for all conclusive knowledge is any data drawn from sensory encounters, comprehended by rationale and argument. Positivism holds that all information that can be considered certain comes from experiences and observations or can be inferred from known facts and past events to avoid relying on predictions and assumptions.
The ontology and epistemology of Positivism
Michael Crotty substantially impacted positivism during the Age of Enlightenment by applying the scientific framework that initiated the research of the natural and social society (Corry et al., 2019). Nowadays, political scientists commonly dispute with one another regarding positivism, which academic researchers in the field have deemed to be outmoded. Additionally, they have embraced ontology, an emerging scientific ideology that tends to reject positivism’s focus on general concepts, thesis approval, and forecasting (Dowding, 2015). The field of analytical literature known as ontology looks at the essence of existence or reality. It pertains to preconceptions about the nature of that societal fact and the sort of items that occur in the social realm. For instance, it has long been believed that the Great Wall of China can be seen from space; despite this untrue, many individuals still hold this belief. Social reality and ontological perspectives on it now vary among individuals. It has been made possible by giving more attention to scientific designs, falsification procedures, structures, and techniques that underlie observable behavior and searching for thorough and comprehensive solutions for scientific facts (Irshaidat, 2022). Since the current scientific realism viewpoint allows for being “scientific” without having to be positivist in conventional terms, various issues and approaches in political science are pointed out as a result of this emergence (Rosenberg, 1995). It addresses contemporary behavioral evaluations and debates as a result, and it also presents novel viewpoints, choices, and difficulties for cautious political science methods and research.
The primary objective of positivist approaches is to validate or invalidate a scientific claim. The epistemology ideologies place a similar heavy emphasis on statistical analysis, empirical methods, and results (Geels, 2022). Empirical socialism’s division on epistemology addresses beliefs about knowing what qualifies as genuine, accurate, and appropriate information and how individuals can impart awareness to others. Epistemology aids in knowing one’s surroundings through learning and aids in telling the difference between reality and falsehood. Reality, for instance, is the ideal illustration of epistemology because anything must be accurate to be deemed knowledge. The fact that the sun will rise in the east cannot be disputed. Furthermore, pre- or post-testing, an experimental category, and a control group are commonly used in positivist approaches. (Junjie et al., 2022). It is based on the idea that truth can be seen. It culminated in positivism, which holds that information depends on commitments and can only be expanded through observation and testing (Gillani, 2021). According to positivism, a person is merely a witness of objective truth (Ntona et al., 2020). Political science tactics have integrated observational approaches from natural science due to this regard for ontology.
Realisticism is a facet of positivism’s ontological position. According to realism, everything contains a component of facts that is independent of the knower. As a result, it is asserted that a discoverable world currently occurs. Thus, most positivists concur that natural observations cannot accurately capture reality (Hwang, 2019). Through designative action, language performs a symbolic role by establishing a connection with the external realm. Therefore, phrases lend meaning to the things they refer to or characterize. On the other side, objectivism is a positivist view of epistemology (Hay, 2002). Positivists take an objective standpoint on society, discerning and gathering precise data and understanding the environment. Objectivism holds that the subject and the researcher are autonomous entities. Only actual things have relevance and consequences; the researcher’s ideas have no such power (Lowndes et al., 2018). The researcher’s solitary objective is to ascertain its significance.
Although there are some variants, the central concepts of positivism are usually obvious. Contrary to interpretivism, positivism is grounded in philosophy. Therefore, the world exists regardless of how scientists perceive it. Furthermore, there are many fundamental concepts between social and natural disciplines. By creating tenable theories predicated on ideas and closely watching social events, it is feasible to draw correlations among them (Lynch et al., 2021). There are no profound or intricate constructions that are impenetrable. In the past, positivism held that the realm was completely authentic and that there was nothing such as actuality or perception dispute (Hollis, 1994). As a result, empirical evidence can separately confirm the theory’s viability. People’s techniques for observation might be objective in vital regard. According to positivism, the primary goal of social and political studies is to generate irrational assertions (Rashid et al., 2019). Positivists believe it’s common rational to search for links between various social events’ causes. Similar distinctions can be made between concerns about what is, or factual inquiries, and issues concerning what should be, or normative inquiries.
Positivists make up the dominating number of social scientists. However, most positivism operates on an implicit threshold, rarely making itself obvious. The behavioral renaissance in the social sciences aimed to study society using empirical methods. It responded immediately to the normative issues of institutionalism and political theory, which were seen as inappropriate methods and behaviors (Corry et al., 2019). Consequently, social science is feasible by following the scientific process, which involves devising and evaluating proposed theories to assess their veracity. Positivistic comments are typically accurate and explicit (Irshaidat, 2022). Hence, positivism is essential because data and research support its concepts. Positivism considers discoverable facts and data definitive, value-free, and ultimate. Ultimately, it is not based on the particular government or historical period.
Post-positivism was created in the 20th century due to positivism. Though it varies in several aspects, post-positivism fundamentally shares the same ontological and epistemological underpinnings as positivism (Dowding, 2015). The positivist approach produces an actual world where the only thing that exists is our faith in the truth of doctrines shown previously to be accurate, relating to ontology. The associative notion of deceit also casts doubt on the integrity of positivist notions. Only when all attempts to disprove them have failed are these ideas tentatively embraced. Consequently, any positivist assertion must be taken with a grain of salt (Geels, 2022). Some scientific positivist views call for knowledge of things other than empirical data. For example, the notion of ambiguity asserts that it is challenging to concurrently determine a subatomic particle’s velocity and precise setting. (Junjie et al., 2022). Ultimately, post-positivism and epistemological argue that awareness is more accurate and factual than information from earlier doctrines and methods.
The strengths and weaknesses of Positivism
Strengths
Positivist methods focus on the establishment of relationships. Positivists look for the variables that affect results. Their goal is to formalize procedures and principles, laying the groundwork for generalization and forecast (Gillani, 2021). The positivist framework calls for a deductive strategy. Implementation of testing and association aids in simplifying intricate relationships with their components (Ntona et al., 2020). In addition, direct encounter and perception are used to search for verifiable facts; this typically involves arbitrary sampling, control categories, experimental evaluation, and structured factors (moderator, dependent, and independent). In reality, actual investigations are favored over simulated ones. Scholars claim a nomothetic scheme employs practices and processes to determine basic principles (Hwang, 2019). As a result, positivists believe their methodology and the data they generate to be value-neutral; similarly, post-positivists seek to understand incidental connections. Therefore, correlational and experimental research methods are employed (Hay, 2002). Nevertheless, extra physiological data is gathered, and respondents’ perspectives are typically examined. Furthermore, because information and data are general, neither the rejection nor encouragement of theoretical concepts can be made.
The false assumption that positivism merely and routinely terminated normative political doctrine during the post-war period stems from early Western-European political philosophy (Heywood, 2000). It was important for the causes listed below. First of all, the varieties of positivism responded considerably differently than one might anticipate. Consequently, it is false to claim that positivism occurs uniformly (Lynch et al., 2021). Consequently, although linguistic positivism and behaviorism may reinforce one another, they are frequently pretty distinct types of claims, and merging them is a grave error (Hollis, 1994). Secondly, although few political philosophers completely dismissed the positivist model, a significant portion were willing to criticize various aspects of the positivist consideration, as shown by the variety of positivist justifications.
At this early stage, normative political philosophers did not take positivists’ points for granted and considered them highly debatable. Some were prepared to dispute the viability of completely comprehending human behavior only through causative arguments from another perspective (Heywood, 2000). They disagreed with the idea that moral advice is pointless in the void of empirical proof. They also disputed that political philosophy was insignificant (Dowding, 2015). The range of political arguments can also be effectively examined by contrasting them with various national events, philosophical customs, and backgrounds.
Weaknesses
Since positivism uses scientific techniques to investigate interpersonal relationships, it has faced much opposition and debate. Critics argue that in an instructional setting where students build implications, constant basic connections well-known in natural science should not be produced (Gillani, 2021). However, in response to this criticism, scholars contend that the positive aspects of positivism should not be quickly dismissed (Junjie et al., 2022). Instead, a few minor changes should be implemented to enable impartial investigation within the discipline of political science. Researchers also claim that there is no such thing as an absolute fact. Scientific theories can also be disproven, not validated (Irshaidat, 2022). Hypotheses do not result in the whole fact; they will only ever serve towards a better estimate of truth. Nowadays, positivism emphasizes objectivity over absolute objectivity and aims to evaluate reality rather than fully understand it or capture its substance (Rosenberg, 1995). Typically, when people identify as positivists, they value probability over ultimate surety.
Therefore, even if behavioral standardizations are present, they should not be taken as proof of the fundamental homogeneity shared by all species; rather, they should be seen as a social construct, a fantasy (Junjie et al., 2022). The claim that the positivist ideology of conservatism demands theories to be as brief and uncomplicated as possible is false. It is due to the impossibility of any social or political science hypothesis being entirely precise and straightforward (Rosenberg, 1995). Chaos and intricacy in concepts are easily produced by the views and perspectives of many individuals on identical events (Lowndes et al., 2018). Consequently, it is difficult to determine absolute truth because so many different variables affect how people behave and different events. Consequently, a fresh approach is required, like the interpretivism approach.
Conclusion
The article centered on behavior analysis while discussing the ontological and epistemological foundations of the positivist perspective on politics. This essay has demonstrated that positivism’s primary drawback is that social science and natural science can be investigated using the same approach. It is difficult to accept that positivist science provides individuals with the most precise, ideal knowledge conceivable. The assumption that the technique is objective and effectively depicts social reality persists even when the claim is refuted rather than stated. Therefore, no matter how firmly one adheres to positivism, there will only be a partially impartial result.
References
Corry, M., Porter, S., and McKenna, H. (2019) The redundancy of positivism as a paradigm for nursing research. Nursing Philosophy, 20(1), e12230.
Dowding, K. (2015) The Philosophy and Methods of Political Science. Palgrave, London– 1 copies available plus 1 x ebook access.
Geels, F. W. (2022) Causality and explanation in socio-technical transitions research: Mobilizing epistemological insights from the wider social sciences. Research policy, 51(6), 104537.
Gillani, D. (2021) Can and” should” Qualitative Research Be Value-Free? Understanding the Epistemological Tussle between Positivists and Interpretivists. Journal of Political Studies, 28(1).
Hay, C. (2002) Political Analysis: A Critical Introduction. Basingstoke: Palgrave. – 14 copies available plus 4 x ebook copies.
Heywood, A. (2000) Key Concepts in Politics & International Relations. Basingstoke: Palgrave. – 16 copies available
Hollis, M. (1994) The Philosophy of Social Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press–4 copies and available electronically
Hwang, K. K. (2019) Positivism versus realism: Two approaches of indigenous psychologies.
Irshaidat, R. (2022) Interpretivism vs. positivism in political marketing research. Journal of Political Marketing, 21(2), 126-160.
Junjie, M., and Yingxin, M. (2022) The Discussions of Positivism and Interpretivism. Online Submission, 4(1), 10-14.
Lowndes, V., Marsh, D. & Stoker, G. eds. (Fourth Edition 2018) Theory and Methods in Political Science. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. – 26 copies available of various editions, plus 3 x ebook copies.
Lynch, J. M., Dowrick, C., Meredith, P., McGregor, S. L., and Van Driel, M. (2021) Transdisciplinary Generalism: Naming the epistemology and philosophy of the generalist. Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 27(3), 638-647.
Ntona, M., and Schröder, M. (2020) Regulating oceanic imaginaries: the legal construction of space, identities, relations and epistemological hierarchies within marine spatial planning. Maritime Studies, 19(3), 241-254.
Rashid, Y., Rashid, A., Warraich, M. A., Sabir, S. S., and Waseem, A. (2019) Case study method: A step-by-step guide for business researchers. International journal of qualitative methods, 18, 1609406919862424.
Rosenberg, A. (1995), Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder, Col: Westview Press. – 14 copies of various editions available
write