A Critique Paper on "Richard Rorty and the Meaning of Social Science (by Ben

Letson)"
by Rachel Asuncion, 2014-23955
University of the Philippines Manila

Social science is a scientific discipline that is widely involved with the

study of society and the relationships of individuals within it. After mulling
over the critic written by Ben Letson, the aforementioned simplified
definition that I've basically known since I've transitioned into high school
had been second-guessed, probed and expounded. In a significantly short
amount of time, questions like, "Can social science lay legitimate claim to the
title of science?" and ""Which paradigm is truly appropriate for social
science?" stirred my appetite for knowledge and rattled my notions on social
science.
Taking Richard Rorty's point-of-view into perspective, I've gathered that
social science can be and is actually a legitimate science. Disagreeing with
the proposition about this specific discipline being a sham, I've surmised that
its controversial lack of predictive success -possibly due to its youth as a
science and the questionable ability of its practitioners - doesn't hinder it
from being a bonafide systematic discipline. Adopting Rorty's belief that
there is no scientific methodology to social science nor is there a reliance of
social science on the scientific method leads me to believe that no amount of
dearth in predictive success would render an apparent science, obsolete.

Moving on to the third guideline question which centers on the most

appropriate paradigm out of the two given methods, my pedantic tendencies
lean on the "value-free" Galilean method. For reasons such as, (1) there is
not much space for error when you follow clean-cut & dry rules and (2) the
"value-free" method promotes practical purposes withdrawing from extrinsic
influences that then gives way to a higher probability of success in providing
quality and non-biased conclusions to human research. Further exemplifying
my presuppositions, I simply hold much trust into the logical pursuit of truth.
Reiterating some of the things I've said in the beginning, I believe that
Letson sees and understands Rorty's view of social science as an out-ofbounds discipline that does not start and end with scientific methodologies
and epistemological hierarchies. Letson strived to explain social science from
Rorty's complex aspect - denoting the multifarious standards and affinities he
has given to the two paradigms and how he attempted to obviate the need
for ordered theories to be able to ground our practices into something other
than our de facto and questionable standards - with unprejudiced tact and
clarity. I agree with most of Letson's arguments that Rorty's view was a bit
twisted and precarious but it had it's defining moments and characteristics
and it definitely shed some much needed light into how we should see social
science.
(Much of what has been said are of my claims and arguments only.
Speculations that may or may not have any bearing in the real world.
Musings

and

judgements

that

are

contingent

and

nugatory

until

methodologically examined.)

REFERENCES/END NOTE:
Ben Letson, Richard Rorty and the Meaning of Social Science (Emory and
Henry College/American University, 1994) pp. 43-52
Richard Rorty, "Method, Social Science, and Social Hope," in Consequences
of Pragmatism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982), pp.
191-195