This essay examines the question if Keohane's deployment of Lakatosian philosophy of science gives Neoliberalism a decisive advantage over Waltzes' Popperian position deployed in Theory of International Politics. The first section briefly introduces the Lakatosian and the Popperian philosophy. The second section discusses both Waltzes' deployment of Popperian philosophy and Keohane's deployment of Lakatosian philosophy. In section 3 a conclusion will be drawn, stating who's philosophy can be considered advantagerous over the other.
Table of Contents
1 – The philosophies of Popper and Lakatos
The philosophy of Karl Popper
The philosophy of Imre Lakatos
2 – The deployment of philosophies by Kenneth Waltz and Robert Keohane
Waltz deployment of Popperian philosophy
Keohane’s deployment of Lakatosian philosophy
3 – Main findings and Conclusion
Main findings
Conclusion
Objectives and Topics
This essay evaluates the claim that Robert Keohane's application of Imre Lakatos's philosophy of science provides a superior theoretical advantage for Neoliberalism compared to Kenneth Waltz's application of Karl Popper's philosophy for structural realism in International Relations.
- Comparison of Popperian falsification and Lakatosian scientific research programmes.
- Analysis of Kenneth Waltz's structural realism through the lens of Popperian philosophy.
- Examination of Robert Keohane’s critique of neorealism using Lakatosian standards.
- Critical assessment of the utility of these philosophies for international relations theory.
Excerpt from the book
The philosophy of Karl Popper
Karl Popper argues that only a deductive approach to science can be truly scientific. He states that a theory can never be entirely verified and there can be no complete solution to a problem if an inductive approach to a theory is applied. However, by falsifying a theory, one can get a precise understanding of the reality, even though a complete truth can never be found (Popper, 1959, p.33). Moreover, the method of falsification offers a possibility to demarcate science from pseudo-science.
The method of falsification is based on the introduction of hypotheses. Popper expects researchers only to establish bold hypotheses and actively participate to falsify and criticize these hypotheses through empirical testing. In addition to the criteria mentioned above, the method of falsification does not allow the introduction of so-called ad-hoc hypotheses. In Popper's view, ad-hoc hypotheses only serve as a means to save a theory from falsification and thus rejection (Popper, 1959, p.42).
Summary of Chapters
1 – The philosophies of Popper and Lakatos: This chapter introduces the core methodological principles of Karl Popper’s falsificationism and Imre Lakatos’s scientific research programmes.
2 – The deployment of philosophies by Kenneth Waltz and Robert Keohane: This section investigates how Waltz applies Popperian criteria to structural realism and how Keohane evaluates neorealism using Lakatosian concepts.
3 – Main findings and Conclusion: This final section synthesizes the critiques, demonstrating that neither framework offers a decisive scientific advantage, and concludes with reflections on the application of these philosophies to social sciences.
Keywords
International Relations Theory, Structural Realism, Neorealism, Neoliberalism, Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos, Falsification, Scientific Research Programme, Kenneth Waltz, Robert Keohane, Deductive Approach, Power Fungibility, Complex Interdependence, Methodology, Epistemology.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this essay?
The essay explores the application of philosophy of science—specifically the works of Popper and Lakatos—within the context of International Relations theory.
What are the central thematic fields?
The main themes include structural realism (neorealism), neoliberalism, methodology in political science, and the critical evaluation of theoretical paradigms.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to determine if Keohane’s use of Lakatosian philosophy provides a clearer scientific advantage to Neoliberalism than Waltz’s use of Popperian philosophy does for structural realism.
Which scientific methods are analyzed?
The paper focuses on the deductive approach, the falsification method, and the concept of scientific research programmes.
What is addressed in the main body?
The main body contrasts Waltz’s systemic theory of international politics with Keohane’s critical analysis of neorealism, examining how each author justifies their theory’s scientific validity.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Key concepts include structural realism, falsification, research programmes, and the intersection of scientific philosophy and international political theory.
How does Waltz view the "ordering principle" of the international system?
Waltz argues that the international system is characterized by anarchy, which distinguishes it from the hierarchical nature of domestic political systems.
Why does Keohane consider neorealism to be "degenerative"?
Keohane argues that neorealists use inappropriate auxiliary hypotheses to protect the core of their theory from empirical falsification rather than producing novel, progressive insights.
What is the author's final conclusion regarding these theories?
The author concludes that neither approach holds a decisive advantage and suggests that applying natural science philosophies to social sciences presents significant challenges that require careful framework selection.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Victoria Sophie Crede (Autor:in), 2017, Does Keohane's deployment of Lakatosian philosophy of science give Neoliberalism a decisive advantage over Waltzes' Popperian position deployed in the Theory of International Politics?, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/417185
