Okay, here’s a breakdown of teh core argument presented in this text, along with its key points and implications. This is essentially a book review/response, specifically too Humphreys and Suganami’s Causal Inquiry in international Relations.
Central Argument:
The author largely agrees with Humphreys and Suganami’s emphasis on rigorous methodological approaches to causal inquiry in international relations. However, thay disagree with the precise framing of the relationship between causal explanations and abstract propensity statements. The author argues that causal explanations aren’t built from scratch based solely on empirical observation, but rather draw upon and refine pre-existing, “previously-vetted” beliefs about how things generally behave (propensity statements). These propensity statements are crucial for even formulating hypotheses and seeking disconfirming evidence.
Key Points & Supporting Ideas:
Propensity Statements are Prior: The author contends that we don’t start with a blank slate when trying to explain events. We already have a body of knowledge – frequently enough tacit or unarticulated – about how the world works. These are “propensity statements” (e.g., “lack of exercise tends to make dogs unhappy”). These statements aren’t necessarily fully formed theories, but rather general expectations about correlations.
Distinction Between Vetting & Explaining: It’s vital to separate the process of establishing the validity of these propensity statements (vetting them through empirical testing) from the process of using them to explain specific events. Humphreys and Suganami, in the author’s view, don’t sufficiently emphasize this distinction.
How We Formulate Hypotheses: Without pre-existing propensity statements, the author asks, how would we even know what to investigate as potential causes? We need some prior reason to suspect a connection between a factor and an outcome.
Zorri the Dog Example: The example of Zorri’s unhappiness illustrates the point. The author argues that suggesting a lack of a walk caused Zorri’s unhappiness only makes sense if we already believe that a lack of walks generally leads to unhappy dogs.
Avoiding a circularity: The author is concerned that without acknowledging the role of prior beliefs, we risk either a mysterious leap from observation to abstraction, or a hidden assumption that an abstract notion is already present in the “pure” empirical observation.
Agreement on Methodology: Despite the disagreement on the philosophical relationship, the author strongly supports Humphreys and Suganami’s focus on empirical evidence and rigorous methodology. They agree that causal inquiry shouldn’t be bogged down in purely metaphysical debates.Implications & Significance:
Reflexivity in Research: The author’s argument highlights the inherently reflexive nature of social science research. Our pre-existing beliefs and understandings inevitably shape the questions we ask and the interpretations we make.
Importance of Theoretical Grounding: It suggests that strong causal inquiry needs to be grounded in a well-developed (and critically examined) set of theoretical assumptions and propensity statements.
Nuance in Causal Modeling: It calls for a more nuanced understanding of how causal models are constructed, recognizing that they are not simply derived from data but are built upon a foundation of prior knowledge.
In essence, the author is advocating for a more realistic and psychologically plausible account of how we actually do causal reasoning, arguing that it’s a process of refining and applying existing knowledge rather then discovering causal relationships ex nihilo*.
Let me know if you’d like me to elaborate on any specific aspect of this text or its argument!