Vinzenz Fischer
University of Vienna
The mechanism-based account of explanation tries to tie sociology into a hierarchy of different disciplines of science by describing phenomena as effects of causal mechanisms that can be described by chains of causal processes. In their article “Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences” Peter Hedström and Petri Ylikoski present one view of how mechanism-based explanation could work for social phenomena. Their argumentation leads them to the conclusion, that a turn towards analytical sociology serves the goals of “good social science”.
In the article “Cognitive and Non-cognitive Values in Science: Rethinking the Dichotomy” Helen E. Longino elaborates upon the idea of cognitive values that are proposed by Thomas Kuhn as one strategy to counter arguments of empirical underdetermination (Longino 1996). Longino argues that there are multiple sets of values that can be embraced by philosophers of science as additional criteria and are therefore a result of social processes within such scientific communities. In another article that is titled “Values, Heuristics, and the Politics of Knowledge” Longino describes those cognitive values as heuristics, that exclude alternative conceptions of science from the academic discourse. This exclusion does not only concern theoretical discussions, but it is also closely tied to resources for scientific work and therefore leads to politics of knowledge.
An analysis of the argumentation presented by Hedström and Ylikoski shows how some notions can be understood as cognitive values in the sense Longino describes. This then leads to a description of the goals that underly Hedström’s and Ylikoski’s call for a turn towards analytical sociology. Despite the critique that can be raised against the strategy of argumentation Hedström and Ylikoski follow, I then present how rethinking the mechanism-based approach can be fruitful even for feminist scientific inquiry. In a last step then I will show how the notions that can be found in Hedström’s and Ylikoski’s article serve as a heuristic and what role they take in the politics of knowledge, to conclude with an emphasis on why and how the call for pluralism within the sciences by Longino can lead to a more inclusive platform of mutual uptake of different approaches to scientific inquiry.
Chair: Danila Ivanov
Time: September 7th, 10:00-10:30
Location: 1.007
SOPhiA 2026 