Philosophy
of
Science

[Essay
Assignment]

Steisianasari
Mileiva,
#841108572070


MAKS*
MSc
Program,
Wageningen
University


February
2010




*
MAKS:
Management
of
Agro‐Ecological
Knowledge
and
Social
Change

 Why
People
Do
What
They
Do?






I. Prologue




This
piece
is
my
first
attempt
to
decipher
philosophy.
It
is
the
way
I,
a
non‐philosopher
or

not
yet
a
philosopher,
would
answer
a
question
from
a
friend:
“What
did
you
learn
in
your

Philosophy
class?”





During
 my
 bachelor
 study
 in
 natural
 science
 discipline—Food
 Science
 and
 Technology—I

developed
a
fascination
with
the
social
science
way
of
looking
at
the
world.
Now
that
I
am

formally
studying
and
struggling
in
social
science,
I
would
like
to
understand
the
society
and

I
would
like
to
start
with
something
really
close
to
our
everyday
life:
“Why
people
do
what

they
do?”




Therefore,
 this
 paper
 is
 an
 excellent
 opportunity
 to
 answer
 the
 above
 two
 questions.
 It
 is

mainly
constructed
from
two
chapters
of
Alexander
Rosenberg
book
entitled
“Philosophy
of

Social
Sciences”
(2008).
The
two
chapters
are:
Chapter
2
“The
Explanation
of
Human
Action

and
Chapter
4:
“Interpretation.”




The
paper
discusses
the
reason(s)
of
human
action—why
people
do
what
they
do.
It
starts

with
introducing
the
difference
of
behavior
and
action
in
a
social
science
perspective.
Then

it
continues
with
bringing
in
folk
psychology
as
one
way
of
explaining
human
action
through

belief
and
desire.
Furthermore,
it
took
the
challenge
of
explaining
that
belief
and
desire
are

socially
 constructed
 and
 that
 folk
 psychology
 is
 an
 interpretative
 and
 non‐scientific

approach.
 Finally,
 the
 paper
 ends
 with
 a
 brief
 proposition
 and
 visualization
 on
 how
 to

introduce
change
based
upon
those
understanding
of
human
action.






II. The
Difference
of
Behavior
and
Action



In
 a
 glance,
 behavior
 and
 action
 sounds
 and
 seems
 to
 be
 the
 same
 thing.
 Some
 sources

(online
dictionaries)
even
state
that
they
are
synonymous.
Nevertheless,
social
science
has

been
zooming
to
this
matter
and
Rosenberg
made
his
point
clear
that
human
activities
can

be
roughly
divided
into
(mere)
behavior
and
action.
This
is
an
important
starting
point
of
my

paper
 and
 the
 following
 paragraphs
 will
 elaborate
 my
 choice
 on
 explaining
 human
 action

instead
of
human
behavior.




Action
is
what
we
do;
while
(mere)
behavior
is
something
that
happens
to
our
bodies
such

as
 eye
 blink,
 heartbeats,
 and
 reflexive
 withdrawal
 from
 heat.
 Furthermore,
 Rosenberg

mentioned
that
actions
are
behaviors
that
are
somehow
under
our
control
or
could
be,
if
we

gave
 them
 enough
 thought
 or
behaviors
 that
posses
intentional
states—desires
and
belief

that
lead
to
it.




Rosenberg
 continued
 with
 pointing
 out
 a
 nice
 example
 of
 the
 difference
 in
 blinking
 and

winking.
 Two
 online
 dictionaries,
 Oxford
 and
 Merriam
 Webster,
 explained
 that
 both
 blink

and
 wink
 involve
 quick
 movement
 of
 closing
 and
 opening
 the
 eyelid.
 However,
 we
 can


Steisianasari
Mileiva,
#
841108572070

 control
 whether
 to
 wink
 or
 not
 to
 wink
 and
 there
 is
 an
 addition
 of
 purpose/intention
 on

winking.
It
is
said
that
to
wink
is
to
close
and
open
the
eyelids
quickly
as
a
signal
of
affection

or
greeting
or
to
convey
a
message.
Thus,
physiologists
are
mainly
concern
of
when
and
why

the
 eye
 blinks
 (mere
 behavior),
 while
 social
 scientists
 such
 as
 anthropologist,
 sociologist,

and
psychologist
are
interested
on
when
and
why
people
wink
at
others—why
they
do
the

action
of
winking?





III. Folk
Psychology:
Desires
and
Beliefs


Folk
 psychology
 deals
 with
 understanding
 human
 action
 using
 concepts
 like
 belief
 and

desire.
Its
theory
mainly
goes
like
the
following:



[L]
If
X
wants
Y,
and
believes
that
Z
is
necessary
for
Y1,
then
X
will
do
Z


It
is
known
as
the
common
sense
theory
and
has
always
been
the
natural
starting
place
to

explain
human
action.
The
theory
involves
commonsense
explanations—things
that
people

do
not
argue
on
or
taken‐for‐granted.


For
 example,
 “Why
 do
 you
 walk
 at
 the
 right
 side
 of
 the
 street?”
 The
 immediate
 answer

would
most
likely
be:
“because
that
is
how
it
is
supposed
to
be,
to
be
safe
in
reaching
my

destination,
 and
 for
 not
 blocking
 the
 way
 of
 people
 who
 are
 coming
 from
 the
 other

direction.”
Using
folk
psychology,
the
complete
explanation
assumes
that
the
person
wants

to
reach
his
destination
and
believes
that
it
is
agreed
to
walk
at
the
right
side
instead
the
left

side.
It
conveys
the
idea
that
everyone
should
be
able
to
understand
the
desire
and
belief

behind
that
action
so
that
it
is
not
important
to
make
it
explicit.




Nevertheless,
 that
 is
 also
 the
 limitation
 of
 folk
 psychology;
 it
 expects
 people
 to
 share
 the

same
(tacit2)
knowledge
or
assumptions.
If
that
question
was
posed
by
an
Indonesian
to
her

Dutch
 friend,
 the
 Indonesian
 who
 is
 used
 to
 walk
 at
 the
 left
 side
 of
 the
 street
 will
 need

further
 explanation
 from
 the
 Dutch
 friend
 about
 the
 traffic
 and
 pedestrian
 rules
 and/or

customs
in
the
Netherlands.




I
also
would
like
to
share
an
example
from
Rosenberg
about
moving
a
king
in
a
chess
game.

If
 someone
 ask,
 “Why
 did
 you
 move
 your
 king?”
 it
 is
 common
 for
 people
 to
 react
 with

answering:
to
avoid
check.
That
explanation
works
when
the
person
who
asked
knows
a
fair

amount
about
chess.
Following
the
formula
of
the
above
folk
psychology,
then
the
answer

will
 be:
 the
 player
 wanted
 to
 avoid
 check
 and
 believed
 that
 moving
 his
 king
 was
 a
 way
 to



























































1
Under
the
circumstances,
because
we
can
“improve”
[L]
by
adding
clauses
such
as:
there
is
no
action
believed
by
x


to
be
a
way
of
bringing
about
y
that
is
more
preferred
by
x;
x
has
no
wants
that
override
y;
x
knows
how
to
do
z;
x
is

able
 to
 do
 z.
 Thus,
 [L]
 should
 be
 seen
 as
 having
 “other
 things
 being
 equal”
 or
 as
 in
 the
 field
 of
 economics
 “cateris

paribus.”

2

 Tacit
 knowledge
 is
 another
 term
 for
 practical
 knowledge—knowledge
 that
 is
 embedded
 in
 practical
 routines,

contextual
experience,
and
memory
(Leeuwis,
2004).
People
assume
others
posses
the
same
knowledge;
if
that
is
not

the
case
and
an
explanation
is
needed;
it
usually
requires
some
efforts
to
elicit/explain
the
tacit
knowledge.


Steisianasari
Mileiva,
#
841108572070

 avoid
check.
Most
of
the
time,
people
who
have
the
embedded
knowledge
of
chess
game

will
not
bother
to
make
it
explicit
that
any
player
believed
that
moving
the
king
would
attain

the
purpose
of
avoiding
a
check.
They
thought
it
is
a
common
sense
and
that
move
is
a
tacit

knowledge
for
those
chess
players.




The
 two
 questions
 I
 shared
 sound
 like
 a
 very
 basic
 question
 that
 people
 rarely
 ask
 and

exactly
 because
 of
 that,
 providing
 a
 proper
 answer/explanation
 is
 often
 undermined.
 That

challenge
 is
 answered
 by
 making
 folk
 psychology
 explicit—by
 identifying
 people’s
 desires

and
beliefs
to
explain
an
action.






IV. Desires
and
Beliefs
are
Socially
Constructed


What
 is
 it
 that
 builds
 people’s
 desires
 and
 beliefs?
 Rosenberg
 suggested
 that
 desires
 and

beliefs
are
subjective,
that
it
reflects
the
ways
people
look
at
the
world,
their
points
of
view,

as
they
acquire
different
information
about
the
world.
Adding
to
that,
I
would
also
suggest

that
 desires
 and
 beliefs
 are
 socially
 constructed;
 this
 is
 based
 on
 the
 understanding
 that

human
 as
 social
 beings
 constructs
 their
 own
 social
 realities;
 for
 examples,
 depending
 on

where
 they
 live,
 what
 they
 have
 seen
 and
 experienced,
 whom
 they
 have
 been
 interacting

with.




In
the
example
of
the
pedestrian
who
was
walking
on
the
right
side
of
the
street,
we
may

add
to
the
explanation
that
the
pedestrian
socially
constructed
his
desire
and
belief
that
he

can
 reach
 a
 destination
 by
 the
 means
 of
 walking;
 he
 was
 taught
 and
 he
 had
 experienced

that
by
moving
the
legs
in
certain
ways,
he
may
not
fall
and
can
move
towards
a
destination.

This
example
allows
an
effort
to
link
this
social
construction
with
the
role
of
natural
science,

the
 understanding
 of
 gravity
 and
 legs
 movement
 was
 crystallized
 in
 a
 natural
 science

disciplines—physics
 and
 human
 anatomy.
 Thus,
 we
 may
 say
 that
 constructivism
 was

developed
with
the
natural
sciences
in
mind.
Furthermore,
the
pedestrian
believes
that
he

will
be
safe
to
walk
on
the
right
side
of
the
street
and
at
the
same
time
not
blocking
the
way

of
 people
 who
 coming
 from
 the
 other
 direction
 was
 socially
 constructed
 by
 his
 social

realities
 of
 living
 in
 a
 country
 where
 society
 is
 regulated
 with
 that
 certain
 pedestrian
 and

traffic
rules
and
that
is
how
he
has
been
informed
by
the
formal
regulations
or
simply
by
the

people
around
him.







V. Folk
Psychology:
Interpretation


Understanding
the
above,
the
next
question
is
then
how
do
we
find
out
precisely
what
are

people’s
desires
and
beliefs
for
actions
that
they
do?
Desires
and
beliefs
are
developing
in

people’s
 mind.
 It
 is
 quite
 impossible
 to
 read
 into
 people’s
 mind.
 Usually,
 it
 is
 most

convenient
to
ask
directly
what
is
on
their
mind;
but
sometimes
people
are
hesitant,
have

difficulties
 in
 expressing
 themselves,
 or
 simply
 do
 not
 want
 to
 share
 their
 beliefs
 and

desires.
 The
 other
 alternative
 is
 to
 observe
 their
 behavior—the
 motion
 of
 human’s
 action

such
as
blinking,
smiling,
walking,
wearing
a
raincoat,
etc.
In
addition,
when
it
is
possible
to

know
 or
 even
 to
 understand
 the
 culture,
 character,
 past
 experiences,
 or
 other
 beliefs
 and

desires
of
the
people;
it
is
beneficial
to
also
link
and
relate
them
with
the
behavior.
In
the


Steisianasari
Mileiva,
#
841108572070

 example
of
a
man
walking
at
the
right
side
of
the
street,
knowing
that
the
man
is
from
the

Netherlands
 where
 it
 is
 regulated
 to
 walk
 at
 the
 right
 side
 of
 the
 street
 was
 helpful
 in

explaining
his
action;
in
addition
to
listening
his
answer
(if
any)
and
observing
his
position

while
walking
on
the
street.





Thus,
 finding
 out
 people’s
 desires
 and
 beliefs
 involves
 interpretation.
 It
 requires

interpretation
 that
 combines
 information
 gathered
 from
 the
 three
 approaches
 mentioned

above:
the
answer
received
by
asking
(if
any),
the
observation
of
behavior,
and
the
analysis

of
linking/relating
behavior
to
people’s
culture,
character,
past
experiences,
or
other
beliefs

and
desires.
Such
interpretation
is
indeed
may
not
be
100%
precise
in
answering
what
are

people’s
 desires
 and
 beliefs
 to
 do
 an
 action.
 However,
 it
 is
 considered
 as
 an
 informative

prediction—it
 helps
 to
 understand
 human
 action
 by
 revealing
 its
 (probable)
 meaning,

significance,
or
intention.
It
helps
to
understand
the
meaning/significance/intention
of
the

Dutch
 man
 who
 are
 walking
 at
 the
 right
 side—(most
 probably)
 to
 be
 safe
 in
 reaching
 his

destination
and
for
not
blocking
people
coming
from
the
other
side;
and
of
the
chess
player

who
is
moving
his
king—(most
likely)
to
avoid
check.






VI. Folk
Psychology:
Non‐Scientific



 Max
 Weber
 suggested
 that
 a
 naturalistic
 approach
 should
 be
 pursued
 by
 folk
 psychology.

This
 is
 by
 establishing
 a
 causal
 connection
 to
 underwrite
 scientific
 explanation
 of
 human

action.
 However,
 Karl
 Popper
 argued
 that
 giving
 causal
 explanation
 of
 an
 event
 means
 to

deduce
 a
 statement,
 which
 describes
 it,
 using
 as
 premises
 of
 the
 deduction
 one
 or
 more

universal
laws,
together
with
certain
singular
statements,
the
initial
conditions.




Natural
science
disciplines,
such
as
physics
and
chemistry
introduced
us
to
many
universal

laws.
Some
of
those
laws
are:
general
law
of
gravitation,
Einstein’s
mass‐energy
equivalence

(E
=
mc2),
ideal
gas
law
(PV
=
nRT),
and
law
of
definite
proportions
that
state
that
a
chemical

compound
 always
 contains
 exactly
 the
 same
 proportion
 of
 elements
 by
 mass.
 These
 laws

rely
on
scientific
research
observing
and
analyzing
events’
regularities.




On
 the
 other
 hand,
 in
 social
 science
 disciplines,
 such
 as
 anthropology,
 communication

science,
and
psychology;
there
is
bigger
challenge
to
establish
universal
laws.
Social
sciences

explore
aspects
of
human
society.
Objects
of
the
study
are
not
gas,
water,
or
chemicals
in
its

material
 forms,
 but
 it
 investigates
 people
 (individuals,
 groups,
 institutions,
 societies),

traditions,
and
also
large‐scale
events
like
inflation
or
war.
Those
objects
are
so
different
to

make
 any
 law‐like
 generalizations
 possible.
 Moreover,
 people
 have
 “free
 will”
 where

intentions
are
beyond
anyone’s
prediction
with
100%
precision.




I
 would
 like
 to
 also
 point
 on
 Leeuwis
 and
 Aarts
 (2009,
 submitted
 to
 research
 Policy)
 who

built
on
the
work
of
Giddens
(1984)
and
Maturana
and
Varela
(1984).
I
see
their
argument

as
supporting
the
notion
of
human’s
“free
will”
and

that
explaining
human
action
involves

interpretation
and
that
it
is
less
likely
to
meet
100%
precision,
to
find
regularities,
or
even
to

build
 a
 causal
 explanation.
 They
 suggested
 that
 there
 are
 three
 division
 of
 spaces
 in

analyzing
human
action,
they
are:
mental
space
(sphere
of
thinking),
discursive
space,
and

interactional
space
(sphere
of
action/doing)
(see
Picture
1
in
Epilogue
section).
They
argued

that
the
existence
of
a
discursive
space
between
mental
space
(desires,
beliefs,
knowledge


Steisianasari
Mileiva,
#
841108572070

 on
 people’s
 mind)
 and
 interactional
 space
 (human
 action)
 was
 an
 analytical
 approach
 to

make
explicit
the
moment
where
people
are
weaving
(competing)
storylines,
social
realities,

negotiation
processes/results
prior
their
decision
to
do
certain
actions.
This
can
be
seen
as

the
space
for
the
development
of
irregularities,
varieties
of
intentions
and
“free
will.”



Therefore,
 it
 is
 common
 to
 have
 a
 causal
 explanation
 supported
 with
 universal
 laws
 and

theories
in
natural
science.
However,
when
it
comes
to
human
action,
not
yet
mentioning

collective
 action
 of
 a
 group/an
 entire
 society,
 causal
 explanation
 faces
 a
 challenge
 of
 the

absence
of
law
that
explain
or
even
predicts
human
action—there
is
a
fundamental
freedom

in
 human
 being
 which
 creates
 difficulties
 in
 identifying
 regularities
 with
 high
 confidence.

Students
 of
 Hermeneutics
 tried
 to
 illuminate
 this
 with
 proposing
 that
 human
 action
 is

explained
by
interpretation.




Rosenberg
underlined
that
[L]
If
X
wants
Y,
and
believes
that
Z
is
necessary
for
Y3,
then
X
will

do
 Z
 is
 unfalsifiable
 and
 unable
 to
 provide
 empirical
 and
 scientific
 knowledge.
 Therefore,

social
science’s
explanations
of
human
action
that
use
[L]
is
neither
empirical
nor
scientific;

rather
as
explained
before,
they
are
interpretative.





VII. Epilogue


In
this
section,
I
would
like
to
briefly
summarize
that
folk
psychology
is
an
attempt
 by
the

field
 of
 social
 science
 to
 explain
 human
 action
 by
 identifying
 desires
 and
 beliefs
 that
 are

socially
 constructed.
 This
 explanation
 is
 an
 interpretative
 approach
 due
 to
 the
 social

construction,
the
irregularities,
or
the
existence
of
human’s
“free
will.”

The
paper
suggests

that
people
do
what
they
do
because
of
the
desires
and
beliefs
that
are
socially
constructed

in
their
mental
and
discursive
space.
Thus,
I
would
like
to
end
this
paper
with
a
thought
that

in
order
to
introduce
change
on
human
action,
it
is
worthwhile
to
influence
the
construction

of
their
desires
and
beliefs.
I
attempted
to
visualize
the
previous
notion
in
Picture
1.





























































3
Under
the
circumstances,
because
we
can
“improve”
[L]
by
adding
clauses
such
as:
there
is
no
action
believed
by
x


to
be
a
way
of
bringing
about
y
that
is
more
preferred
by
x;
x
has
no
wants
that
override
y;
x
knows
how
to
do
z;
x
is

able
 to
 do
 z.
 Thus,
 [L]
 should
 be
 seen
 as
 having
 “other
 things
 being
 equal”
 or
 as
 in
 the
 field
 of
 economics
 “cateris

paribus.”


Steisianasari
Mileiva,
#
841108572070

 Possible

CHANGE


People’s
life‐world:


Past,
Present,
and
Future



 Mental
Space
 Interactional
Space
 

Desires
and
Beliefs,

 Action

socially
constructed


Discursive
Space

Negotiations,
‘’Free
Will’’


Ask
 Observe
 Link
+
Relate
to


life‐world


Interpretation
+
possibility
of
“Free
Will”


≠
Causal
Explanation


≠
Scientific


Picture
1.
Desires,
Beliefs,
and
Human
Action


Steisianasari
Mileiva,
#
841108572070

References


Leeuwis,
C.
(with
contribution
by
A.
van
den
Ban).
2004.
Communication
for
Rural
Innovation:

Rethinking
Agricultural
Extension.
Blackwell
Science/CTA,
Oxford/Wageningen.



Leeuwis,
C.
and
M.N.C.
Aarts.
2009.
Rethinking
communication
in
innovation
processes:
multiple

modes
 of
 intermediation
 in
 complex
 system:
 Course
 Required
 Reading,
 submitted
 to

research
Policy.



Rosenberg,
A.
2008.
Philosophy
of
Social
Science.
Westview
Press,
Boulder‐Colorado.






Steisianasari
Mileiva,
#
841108572070