UI400 Philosophy Paper Methodology.
The method of argumentation and (sometimes) proof used in philosophy is derived from and is essentially a refinement of the so-called Socratic Method, also known as Platonic dialectic (derived from Plato’s dialogues & refined over the centuries). It consists not merely in reporting on what others have said or argued, but in examining their claims to test them for validity, truth, soundness, and reliability of generalization and so on. It involves deductive methods, reductio ad absurdum or the selective application of relevant counterexamples, analogical and inductive procedures. It requires the examination of ideas, reasons, arguments and experience, and evidence drawn from various sources. It even involves experimental reasoning in the form of thought experiments. The overall format is that of the hypothetical-deductive method of developing a thesis by proposing a hypothesis, deducing the consequences that logically follow from that hypothesis and then testing them against other well-established beliefs, experience, data, and the results of the analyses and interpretations of a thesis by other scholars (secondary sources). Below follows a brief outline of some key steps to follow in executing a genuine philosophical analysis of a thesis and it argument(s). First a flow chart:
1. Thesis statement – a brief statement of the problem, why you think it’s a problem, & how you plan to approach it (these elements should occur in the introduction to your paper). 2. Hypothesis formation – described below, 3. Development of hypothesis, 4. Testing of hypothesis, 5. Modification and reexamination of hypothesis (steps 2 – 5 make up the body of your paper).
Repeat until you have whittled down the various sides to the point where you can make at well-reasoned choice between the different sides of an issue and can make a strong logical defense of the side you discover to be most defensible.
Thesis: a clear statement of the ideas, theory, problem(s) or issues with which you intend to deal. For example, suppose you are interested in the question of the purpose of corporations. You have three articles in your text to use as a starting point, but between the three articles you have two main positions to consider; stockholder (shareholder) theory vs. stakeholder theory. (1) Briefly state what the problem is; (2) describe why it needs to be dealt with again and some of the ways in which others have dealt with it, & why these ways leave questions unaddressed or unresolved, i.e., explain where & why you think you still see problems; (3) briefly describe how you plan to approach the problem.
Hypothesis formation: (a) Now, whatever stand you intend to take on the problem, formulate a hypothesis in the form of an “if __________then _ _ _ _ _” statement. For example: consider Milton Friedman’s stockholder theory vs. Edward Freeman’s stakeholder theory. To put it explicitly, here’s an example of a hypothesis:
On Friedman’s view: IF investors have risked their own private property (i.e., their earnings, time, effort & work, viz., the time of their own lives) & done so in accordance with established moral standards & the legal system, THEN they have an inviolable right to a return on their investment to use as they see fit, and without the CEO or corporate governors intruding on the investors’ right by independently deciding how and where to spend the profits that actually belong to the investors.
Do likewise with Freeman’s stakeholder theory.
(b) Next, begin to analyze the hypothesis by careful inductive generalizations and by deducing the logical consequences of one’s hypothesis in order to develop it, refine it, spell it out to make sure it is clear & includes all that needs to be covered and excludes all that is irrelevant or not of immediate concern. Boatright’s article is a useful beginning to this part.
Following through on our example, one might argue the following as a valid consequence of Friedman’s position: (1) The investors’ monies invested in the corporation were invested in good faith, and represent the time, talent, labor and lives of the investors. For any CEO or corporate management to take the profits that, according to contractual agreements, ought to be used to pay dividends to investors, and to spend those profits on projects or interests favored only by the CEO or corporate management, then that CEO has stolen from investors, usurped their rights, violated the promise implicit in the contractual agreements, and undermined the freedom of the investors & the investors’ privilege to use their earnings on projects and interests of their own choosing. In short, such a CEO (et.al.) has violated several moral and legal standards & objective moral principles recognized around the world. This is a very strong reason in favor of Milton Friedman’s position. Give several more consequences that follow from his position that involve suppliers, vendors, customers, and others with whom the corporations has dealings, all of which any successful corporation that wants to stay in business has to meet.
Then consider the opposing view (hypothesis) of Freeman, he argues that the CEO or corporation has social obligations to “stakeholders” that go way beyond its primary duties to the investors. Upon examination of Freeman’s view, you will find that there are few if any limits on the so-called “social obligations” of the corporation to the so-called stakeholders. Show the consequences of this. Freeman’s lack of limits on what might count as a stakeholder goes too far; so much so that it would be practically impossible for the corporation to turn a profit and meet it primary obligations to pay dividends to its investors, & instead apply those profits to the social interests of the CEO’s choosing. In fact, Freeman argues that CEOs & management have an obligation to decided—without consulting the investors—where to spend the profits, which special interests to contribute to & which not, all of which might be contrary to the investors’ interests & freedom to choose. Freeman writes as if the free-market position of Friedman fails to take into account the corporation’s relations with suppliers, vendors, customers, and others; a glaring falsehood and wildly obnoxious implication that Freeman tries to hand on Friedman. In short, on Freeman’s view, the investor’s dividends seem to be an after-thought. Furthermore, since the investors’ investments represent their lives (i.e., time, sweat & tears, in the form of the $ they invest), for Freeman to argue that the CEO or corporation have—or ought to have—the authority to spend the profits of the investors’ as they (the CEO et. al.) see fit, then the CEO et. al. is infringing the freedom, labor & rights of the investors and thus reducing them to a position of servitude to the corporation (i.e., in Kantian terms, reducing the investors to “merely means to an end”). Thus, even though Freeman makes it seems as though “social obligations” and “social responsibility” to “stakeholders” is a moral and desirable goal, it is wildly immoral.
(c) These are the options that one has to explore, develop and then test in the manner shown above. One has to proceed in a point—counterpoint, argumentative fashion until one reaches a reasonable conclusion supporting one side or the other.
Testing the Hypothesis: Draw out the consequences of the hypothesis as fully as possible (within the limitations of the paper assigned in your class). Try to detect problems that only become clear upon drawing out the consequences a considerable way. Look for contradictions and inconsistencies that might show up only after you have drawn out the implications of your hypothesis. Consider possible counter-examples to your hypothesis & its consequences. ALWAYS check for the internal coherence of your hypothesis and its coherence with other lines of explanation that have already been established. Finally, never fail to check the hypothesis & its consequences against experience, research literature, commentaries on the authors who have dealt with the problem, etc., in a fair and unbiased way.
Modification and reexamination of hypothesis: First of all, remember, one always has to reexamine one’s hypotheses, even the one you hold most dear, so successes and failures alike are subject to this step. (a) What to do if thing seems to be going your way? If everything with your thesis and hypothesis is checking out OK, terrific, way to go, etc! But, in reality, so what? You are not finished. So far, it looks like you ideas are being verified and your hypothesis confirmed. But as the Great Quine (the bald man behind the curtain) has argued, any hypothesis can be confirmed in any number of ways: all one has to do is make the appropriate adjustments to one’s auxiliary hypotheses and assumptions. So, experiment with some reasonable modifications to your hypothesis to see how far it can be extended before it starts running into difficulties. Also, tinker with modifications to the hypothesis with a view to exposing certain assumptions and auxiliary hypotheses that you took for granted or did not realize you were assuming. Check them to see how sensible or goofy, strong or weak these previously undisclosed assumptions really are… remember the warnings about houses built on sand and a chain’s weakest link!
(b) If things are not going so well: i.e., you keep running into contradictions, new problems, eventual break-downs in the development of your explanations, failures of the internal coherence of your hypothesis, failures of its coherence with other lines of explanation that have already been established, or your hypothesis and its consequences fail to check-out against experience, research literature & commentaries. In this case you have two options. (A) If it is a miserable failure, you should consider abandoning your hypothesis [maybe even your thesis] and starting over again from scratch! (B) If it’s not a complete failure, then modify your hypothesis in the appropriate premises and places to see if you can repair it and make it work. Once you have introduced the modifications, repeat the steps outlined above to refine the new hypothesis and test it. Keep going until you have some valuable results.
