Bringing clarity and order to the discussion by disclosing both key commonalities and significant differences between the ways we talk about facts and explanations, Patrick Thaddeus Jackson argues that although intrinsically more contestable than facts, social-scientific explanations can nonetheless be related to them in ways that allow researchers to evaluate explanations based on whether and to what extent they accord with the relevant facts in each situation. Ardently defending a pragmatist account of knowledge that has no patience with either "alternative facts" or "anything goes" relativism, the author develops a set of concepts that enables tricky philosophical problems to be dissolved. After examining facts, causal explanations, and interpretive explanations, the book culminates in an account of the priority of interpretation in the evaluation of any explanation-and any seemingly factual claim.
Defining the terms of the debate and grounding better conversations about the issues, this book will appeal to all scholars interested in the philosophy and methodology of the social sciences, international studies, international relations, security studies, and anyone teaching or studying research methods.
Dieser Download kann aus rechtlichen Gründen nur mit Rechnungsadresse in A, B, BG, CY, CZ, D, DK, EW, E, FIN, F, GR, HR, H, IRL, I, LT, L, LR, M, NL, PL, P, R, S, SLO, SK ausgeliefert werden.
- Laura Sjoberg, Royal Holloway, University of London, UK
With his usual panache, Patrick Thaddeus Jackson argues convincingly that explanations rely not only on facts, but on general claims that connects those facts and suggest how they may have effects. From now on, MaFGA stands for Making Facts Great Again.
- Iver B. Neumann, Director of The Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Norway
Patrick Jackson's new book offers a highly original investigation into three activities which are of fundamental importance for all social sciences: description, causal explanation, and interpretive explanation. Jackson's style is engaging, and his contentions are thought-provoking, guided by his desire inter alia to facilitate a mutual understanding, on the subject of causal explanation in particular, between neopositivists, faith communities, and those social scientists who broadly share his stance, based on the manipulationist theory of causation. He also provides an insightful discussion about what an interpretive explanation may achieve, informed by his thoughtful engagement with the work of Charles Manning, a foundational member of the so-called 'English School of International Relations'.
- Hidemi Suganami, Aberystwyth University, UK








