A Realist Philosophy of Social Science Explanation and Understanding [Hardcover]

In this volume, Peter Manicas brings the idea of causality to bear on inquiry in social sciences.Manicas brings the idea of causality and the role that it plays in the physical sciences to bear on inquiry in social sciences. Offering a reassessment of the problem of explanation from a realist perspective, this breathtaking volume, with a host of concrete examples, will appeal to the non-specialist reader.Manicas brings the idea of causality and the role that it plays in the physical sciences to bear on inquiry in social sciences. Offering a reassessment of the problem of explanation from a realist perspective, this breathtaking volume, with a host of concrete examples, will appeal to the non-specialist reader.This introduction to the philosophy of social science provides an original conception of the task and nature of social inquiry. Peter Manicas discusses the role of causality seen in the physical sciences and offers a reassessment of the problem of explanation from a realist perspective. He argues that the fundamental goal of theory in both the natural and social sciences is not, contrary to widespread opinion, prediction and control, or the explanation of events (including behaviour). Instead, theory aims to provide an understanding of the processes which, together, produce the contingent outcomes of experience. Offering a host of concrete illustrations and examples of critical ideas and issues, this accessible book will be of interest to students of the philosophy of social science, and social scientists from a range of disciplines.1. Explanation and understanding; 2. Theory, experiment and the metaphysics of Laplace; 3. Explanation and understanding in the social sciences; 4. Agents and generative social mechanisms; 5. Social science and history; 6. Markets as social mechanisms. With this book Manicas has filled a major need in the philosophy of social science, which has not given adequate critical attention to the problem of explanation. His argument that unlï