Political Science and Political Science and “The Scientific Method“The Scientific Method

Normative and Empirical Normative and Empirical Studies in Comparative Studies in Comparative

PoliticsPolitics

The goals of this sectionThe goals of this section

1.1. Normative versus Empirical AnalysisNormative versus Empirical Analysis: you : you should be able to distinguish between the should be able to distinguish between the two and relate them to the discussion in two and relate them to the discussion in the text of the text of value-judgmentsvalue-judgments versus versus empirical analysisempirical analysis. We will illustrate this . We will illustrate this distinction with the example of how to distinction with the example of how to approach the relationship between approach the relationship between iinequality and democracynequality and democracy

2.2. Second, you should become intimately Second, you should become intimately familiar with what we call the “Scientific familiar with what we call the “Scientific Method”. You should be able to take a Method”. You should be able to take a position on the following question (which position on the following question (which not all political scientists agree upon): not all political scientists agree upon): where is the Science in Political Science?where is the Science in Political Science?

1. Normative and 1. Normative and Empirical ApproachesEmpirical Approaches

Normative Approaches:Normative Approaches:• Emphasize what Emphasize what oughtought to happen, what to happen, what shouldshould be. This is very be. This is very

different from describing and analyzing what actually different from describing and analyzing what actually isis, what , what already exists.already exists.

• They often include value judgments about optimal standards (norms, They often include value judgments about optimal standards (norms, hence the phrase hence the phrase normativenormative approaches) approaches)

• They are closely connected with political philosophy. Some of the They are closely connected with political philosophy. Some of the greatest questions in politics can be traced back to the earliest greatest questions in politics can be traced back to the earliest Greek philosophers. For example, Plato asked the question: “What Greek philosophers. For example, Plato asked the question: “What kind of rule is best? How can we prevent tyranny?”. Through the kind of rule is best? How can we prevent tyranny?”. Through the centuries, political philosophers continued to ask such questions; for centuries, political philosophers continued to ask such questions; for example, Locke asked “Why do we need government?”, example, Locke asked “Why do we need government?”, Montesquieu asked, “How can we prevent the usurpation of power?”, Montesquieu asked, “How can we prevent the usurpation of power?”, Madison asked, “What is there to prevent the corruption of politics?”.Madison asked, “What is there to prevent the corruption of politics?”.

• Normative approaches are really important; they are the basis or Normative approaches are really important; they are the basis or starting point for most questions in starting point for most questions in empiricalempirical political science (which political science (which we will look at in a moment). It is almost impossible to conduct a we will look at in a moment). It is almost impossible to conduct a ‘scientific’ investigation of something to do with politics without ‘scientific’ investigation of something to do with politics without having some sort of normative concern. Equally, every empirical having some sort of normative concern. Equally, every empirical study carries, for better or for worse, some sort of normative study carries, for better or for worse, some sort of normative meaning.meaning.

Empirical Approaches Empirical Approaches • However, as social scientists, we seek to discover, However, as social scientists, we seek to discover,

describe, and explain facts and factual relationships. describe, and explain facts and factual relationships. This is the foundation of This is the foundation of empirical analysisempirical analysis. Although . Although we may have our own opinions about things, and we may have our own opinions about things, and indeed, we might wish to find out that certain things indeed, we might wish to find out that certain things are true or false, we try and keep those opinions out of are true or false, we try and keep those opinions out of the process as much as humanly possible. Our goal is the process as much as humanly possible. Our goal is to behave much as natural scientists do when to behave much as natural scientists do when investigating such phenomena as gravity, osmosis, investigating such phenomena as gravity, osmosis, etc.etc.

• Thus we try to make sure that our studies remain Thus we try to make sure that our studies remain remain value-free, and that we eliminate biases remain value-free, and that we eliminate biases wherever and whenever they occur.wherever and whenever they occur.

• In this goal, we use the tools of science (hence the In this goal, we use the tools of science (hence the label label the scientific methodthe scientific method); concepts, models, and ); concepts, models, and “the scientific method” to uncover such relationships.“the scientific method” to uncover such relationships.

• These distinctions can be illustrated with an example.These distinctions can be illustrated with an example.

2. An example2. An example

Inequality, Democracy, and Inequality, Democracy, and Comparative PoliticsComparative Politics

The Normative PerspectiveThe Normative Perspective• Normative theorists (political philosophers) might approach Normative theorists (political philosophers) might approach

the relationship between inequality and democracy by the relationship between inequality and democracy by asking questions like the following (indeed, these are asking questions like the following (indeed, these are representative of questions that have been asked by some representative of questions that have been asked by some of the most prominent political theorists though the of the most prominent political theorists though the centuries):centuries):

Is inequality desirable?Is inequality desirable?How much inequality is desirable?How much inequality is desirable?What is too much inequality?What is too much inequality?Should all people be considered equal?Should all people be considered equal?Is it the role of government to guarantee equality?Is it the role of government to guarantee equality?

• Note that there is no right or wrong answer to these Note that there is no right or wrong answer to these questions; almost everybody might have a slightly different questions; almost everybody might have a slightly different opinion about them, and we have no scientific basis on opinion about them, and we have no scientific basis on which to distinguish between the answers. The only way which to distinguish between the answers. The only way that we could evaluate the answers people give is by the that we could evaluate the answers people give is by the quality of the argumentquality of the argument (whether it is logically sound, (whether it is logically sound, whether any facts used are correct, etc.). But we can never whether any facts used are correct, etc.). But we can never say that one person is right and another wrong, save on the say that one person is right and another wrong, save on the basis of our own (inherently biased) views.basis of our own (inherently biased) views.

The Empirical Perspective The Empirical Perspective • Empirical political scientists, on the other hand, might ask Empirical political scientists, on the other hand, might ask

rather different questions. Before we get to the questions rather different questions. Before we get to the questions themselves, however, there are two steps that we would themselves, however, there are two steps that we would need to go through. need to go through.

1.1. First, an empirical political scientist would begin by asking: How First, an empirical political scientist would begin by asking: How do we define inequality? (this is what we call “the working do we define inequality? (this is what we call “the working definition of the concept”)definition of the concept”)

2.2. Next, we would ask: How do we measure inequality? (this is what Next, we would ask: How do we measure inequality? (this is what we grandiosely label “the operationalization of the concept”)we grandiosely label “the operationalization of the concept”)

• Then we can get on and do what most empiricists do, look Then we can get on and do what most empiricists do, look for the causes and consequences of the concept under for the causes and consequences of the concept under investigation, in this case inequality (these are what we call investigation, in this case inequality (these are what we call “the “the correlatescorrelates of the concept”). of the concept”).

• So, we can begin to put this in the form of particular questions; So, we can begin to put this in the form of particular questions; compare them with the kind of questions that normative theorists compare them with the kind of questions that normative theorists ask, and you can instantly see the difference… let us look at some ask, and you can instantly see the difference… let us look at some questions that empirical political scientists have investigated and questions that empirical political scientists have investigated and their findings.their findings.

Empirical Questions and FindingsEmpirical Questions and Findings

Here’s a question that is quite interesting, if we are interested in Here’s a question that is quite interesting, if we are interested in inequality: “are democracies more equal in terms of wealth inequality: “are democracies more equal in terms of wealth distribution than other forms of government?” (Note that distribution than other forms of government?” (Note that straight away we can see the overlap between normative and straight away we can see the overlap between normative and empirical political science. From a normative perspective, we empirical political science. From a normative perspective, we would probably really like it if the answer is yes, that would probably really like it if the answer is yes, that democracies are more equal in terms of wealth distribution than democracies are more equal in terms of wealth distribution than other kinds of political systems).other kinds of political systems).

In fact, the answer is: No, they are not!In fact, the answer is: No, they are not! Our evidence has already been seen, in the previous section Our evidence has already been seen, in the previous section

when we discussed the Gini Index: we know, for example, that when we discussed the Gini Index: we know, for example, that democratization in Eastern Europe was accompanied by greater democratization in Eastern Europe was accompanied by greater inequality.inequality.

Note also that the finding has a “real world” policy relevance: Note also that the finding has a “real world” policy relevance: As we were trying to help former communist countries make the As we were trying to help former communist countries make the transition to democracy, we had to contend with the thorny transition to democracy, we had to contend with the thorny issue of how do democratizing regimes deal with the increase in issue of how do democratizing regimes deal with the increase in new forms of inequality?new forms of inequality?

More Empirical FindingsMore Empirical Findings Does democracy lead to economic development? Again, we Does democracy lead to economic development? Again, we

would probably really like it if we could find evidence that would probably really like it if we could find evidence that creating democracy in a country is a predictor of future creating democracy in a country is a predictor of future economic development. It would be nice to think that the economic development. It would be nice to think that the solution to the economic woes of much of the under-developed solution to the economic woes of much of the under-developed world lies in democracy.world lies in democracy.

Unfortunately, again the answer is a resounding: NoUnfortunately, again the answer is a resounding: No Our evidence is drawn from books such as that edited by Adam Our evidence is drawn from books such as that edited by Adam

Przeworski and his colleagues, Przeworski and his colleagues, Democracy and DevelopmentDemocracy and Development (2000).(2000).

Again, there is a real-world policy relevance: Should Again, there is a real-world policy relevance: Should development efforts and our aid money concentrate on development efforts and our aid money concentrate on democratization? The answer, devoid of any moral content, is, democratization? The answer, devoid of any moral content, is, no. However, perhaps we might want to make the choice to no. However, perhaps we might want to make the choice to foster democracy anyway, all the while knowing that it will not foster democracy anyway, all the while knowing that it will not automatically guarantee better standards of living. This is a automatically guarantee better standards of living. This is a normative question, however.normative question, however.

More Empirical FindingsMore Empirical Findings Here’s another question of great interest: does inequality Here’s another question of great interest: does inequality

produce instability? In other words, if societies experience produce instability? In other words, if societies experience higher levels of wealth inequality, are they more likely to higher levels of wealth inequality, are they more likely to become unstable?become unstable?

The answer, as we might suspect, is a definitive: YesThe answer, as we might suspect, is a definitive: Yes Our evidence is drawn from a plethora of studies such as: Our evidence is drawn from a plethora of studies such as:

Huntington (1967), Bingham Powell (1982) (this was a Huntington (1967), Bingham Powell (1982) (this was a synchronic comparison, meaning that he compared different synchronic comparison, meaning that he compared different countries at the same point in time, and found that those with countries at the same point in time, and found that those with higher levels of inequality had greater instability); Piven and higher levels of inequality had greater instability); Piven and Cloward (1979, 1997) (this was a diachronic comparison, Cloward (1979, 1997) (this was a diachronic comparison, meaning that they compared the same society over time, and meaning that they compared the same society over time, and found that when wealth distributions were more unequal, that found that when wealth distributions were more unequal, that society exhibited greater levels of instability)society exhibited greater levels of instability)

POLICY RELEVANCE: Should we be concerned about the POLICY RELEVANCE: Should we be concerned about the increase in inequality in Western societies since the 1960’s? As increase in inequality in Western societies since the 1960’s? As we saw in the example of the Gini Index, inequality has risen in we saw in the example of the Gini Index, inequality has risen in the United States since 1968. In fact, this is true of the majority the United States since 1968. In fact, this is true of the majority of western democratic nations.of western democratic nations.

3. The Scientific Method3. The Scientific Method

The “scientific method”The “scientific method” The first to use the scientific method were Hellenistic philosophers (most The first to use the scientific method were Hellenistic philosophers (most

often cited is Aristotle, who we have already seen cited as one of the often cited is Aristotle, who we have already seen cited as one of the ‘fathers’ of comparative politics)‘fathers’ of comparative politics)

The “scientific revolution” occurs in the 16The “scientific revolution” occurs in the 16thth and 17 and 17thth centuries, with centuries, with developments in physics, astronomy, mathematics, and chemistrydevelopments in physics, astronomy, mathematics, and chemistry

However, the “scientific method” as a means to thinking about societal However, the “scientific method” as a means to thinking about societal progress was really brought to wider attention in the 17progress was really brought to wider attention in the 17thth and 18 and 18thth centuries centuries (The period that we call The Enlightenment)(The period that we call The Enlightenment)

The core of the scientific method is provided by understanding different The core of the scientific method is provided by understanding different modes of reasoning (inductive versus deductive), hypothesis-testing, and modes of reasoning (inductive versus deductive), hypothesis-testing, and identifying the identifying the causal mechanismcausal mechanism..

Inductive versus Deductive Inductive versus Deductive ReasoningReasoning

Inductive reasoningInductive reasoning Francis Bacon (1561-1626) argued that a sufficiently large number of Francis Bacon (1561-1626) argued that a sufficiently large number of

observations would lead to theories accounting for relationships observed. observations would lead to theories accounting for relationships observed. In other words, we begin our scientific inquiry by looking at events taking In other words, we begin our scientific inquiry by looking at events taking place or things occurring, and, on the basis of what we see, we begin to place or things occurring, and, on the basis of what we see, we begin to build some large-scale theory can adequately account for them. Bacon, by build some large-scale theory can adequately account for them. Bacon, by the way, invented the expression “Knowledge is power”. (More about the way, invented the expression “Knowledge is power”. (More about Bacon can be found at: Bacon can be found at: http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Bacon.htm).http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Bacon.htm).

Deductive reasoningDeductive reasoning Rene Descartes (1596-1650) argued that we can only account for Rene Descartes (1596-1650) argued that we can only account for

observed phenomena, things we witness, on the basis of clear and distinct observed phenomena, things we witness, on the basis of clear and distinct ideas. In other words, we can’t really understand what is important and ideas. In other words, we can’t really understand what is important and what is not unless we have some prior theories about the way things work. what is not unless we have some prior theories about the way things work. (More about Descartes can be found at: (More about Descartes can be found at: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/descarte.htmhttp://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/descarte.htm).).

Hypothesis-TestingHypothesis-Testing This was first articulated by Galileo through his study of falling bodies. This was first articulated by Galileo through his study of falling bodies.

Observing that heavy objects fall with increasing speed, he formulated the Observing that heavy objects fall with increasing speed, he formulated the hypothesis that the speed attained is directly proportional to the distance hypothesis that the speed attained is directly proportional to the distance traversed. Being unable to test this directly, he deduced from his hypothesis the traversed. Being unable to test this directly, he deduced from his hypothesis the conclusion that objects falling unequal distances require the same amount of conclusion that objects falling unequal distances require the same amount of elapsed time. This was a false conclusion, and hence, logically, the first elapsed time. This was a false conclusion, and hence, logically, the first hypothesis was false. Therefore Galileo framed a new hypothesis: that the hypothesis was false. Therefore Galileo framed a new hypothesis: that the speed attained is directly proportional to the time elapsed, not the distance speed attained is directly proportional to the time elapsed, not the distance traversed. From this he was able to infer that the distance traversed by a falling traversed. From this he was able to infer that the distance traversed by a falling object is proportional to the square of the time elapsed, and this hypothesis he object is proportional to the square of the time elapsed, and this hypothesis he was able to verify experimentally by rolling balls down an inclined plane.was able to verify experimentally by rolling balls down an inclined plane. In In other words: we form a hypothesis (which can be thought of as an other words: we form a hypothesis (which can be thought of as an educated guess), and then our job as scientists is to devise a way that educated guess), and then our job as scientists is to devise a way that we can test it. If the hypothesis fails to pass muster, we form a new, we can test it. If the hypothesis fails to pass muster, we form a new, better one. Eventually, we will be able to confirm the hypothesis and better one. Eventually, we will be able to confirm the hypothesis and thus gain knowledge.thus gain knowledge.

The Causal MechanismThe Causal Mechanism Newton invented the study of calculus as a means of abstracting from Newton invented the study of calculus as a means of abstracting from

reality; Newton is the first to rely upon mathematical models rather than reality; Newton is the first to rely upon mathematical models rather than observation. But Newton stressed the need, under such conditions, not observation. But Newton stressed the need, under such conditions, not just to infer causality but to observe it. In other words, it is not sufficient to just to infer causality but to observe it. In other words, it is not sufficient to observe a correlation between two things to suspect that one has caused observe a correlation between two things to suspect that one has caused the other; we should be able to observe or understand the process by the other; we should be able to observe or understand the process by which it occurs. If we can’t live up to this standard, then all we can say is which it occurs. If we can’t live up to this standard, then all we can say is that there is a correlation, but we do not know what is causing what.that there is a correlation, but we do not know what is causing what.

Other requirementsOther requirements

Essentially, we can say that the application of the scientific method makes Essentially, we can say that the application of the scientific method makes three demands upon the social scientist:three demands upon the social scientist:

The first of them is empiricism, which we can summarize in the aphorism The first of them is empiricism, which we can summarize in the aphorism “what I observe is what exists”. Alternatives to this might include; “what I observe is what exists”. Alternatives to this might include; emotive evidence (feelings), hearsay, testimonial, circumstantial, emotive evidence (feelings), hearsay, testimonial, circumstantial, revelatory, spectral, or authoritative evidence. All have their place in revelatory, spectral, or authoritative evidence. All have their place in human relations, but only empiricism is allowed as the basis on which we human relations, but only empiricism is allowed as the basis on which we admit evidence into our scientific endeavors.admit evidence into our scientific endeavors.

Rationalism, which we can define as the practice of logical reasoning. It is Rationalism, which we can define as the practice of logical reasoning. It is possible to argue cases on other bases, yet as social scientists we stick to possible to argue cases on other bases, yet as social scientists we stick to logical reasoning.logical reasoning.

A healthy skepticism. We never allow ourselves to be too gullible, or too A healthy skepticism. We never allow ourselves to be too gullible, or too fall too quickly into the trap of believing something to be true because we fall too quickly into the trap of believing something to be true because we want it to be true. As social scientists, we continually question whether we want it to be true. As social scientists, we continually question whether we have done as a good a job as possible of testing our hypotheses in a critical have done as a good a job as possible of testing our hypotheses in a critical fashion (by that, we mean in such a way as to permit us to tell whether the fashion (by that, we mean in such a way as to permit us to tell whether the hypothesis is a good one or not).hypothesis is a good one or not).

The Four Basic Steps of Scientific The Four Basic Steps of Scientific ResearchResearch

Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomenaObservation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomenaFormulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or

to predict quantitatively the results of new observationsto predict quantitatively the results of new observations Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several

independent experimenters and properly performed experimentsindependent experimenters and properly performed experiments

Common MistakesCommon Mistakes

Confusing the hypothesis for the Confusing the hypothesis for the explanationexplanation

When testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a When testing an hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests. Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing Sometimes "common sense" and "logic" tempt us into believing that no test is needed. that no test is needed.

Experimenter BiasExperimenter Bias Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support

the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way.

Systematic ErrorSystematic Error Another common mistake arises from the failure to Another common mistake arises from the failure to estimateestimate quantitatively quantitatively

systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries systematic errors (and all errors). There are many examples of discoveries which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new which were missed by experimenters whose data contained a new phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. phenomenon, but who explained it away as a systematic background. Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which Conversely, there are many examples of alleged "new discoveries" which later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the later proved to be due to systematic errors not accounted for by the "discoverers.""discoverers."

Components of the Scientific Components of the Scientific MethodMethod

A A hypothesishypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before specific situations; it also refers to our state of knowledge before experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new experimental work has been performed and perhaps even before new phenomena have been predicted. phenomena have been predicted.

The word The word modelmodel is reserved for situations when it is known that the is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity. hypothesis has at least limited validity.

A A scientific theoryscientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests. experimental tests.

The The dependent variabledependent variable is the measure of the phenomenon that is trying to be is the measure of the phenomenon that is trying to be explainedexplained

Explanatory (independent) variablesExplanatory (independent) variables are the measures of the phenomena that are the measures of the phenomena that may explain variation in the dependent variablemay explain variation in the dependent variable

CorrelationCorrelation is when two variables seem to move in relationship to each other is when two variables seem to move in relationship to each other (i.e. (i.e. educationeducation and and voter turnoutvoter turnout))

A A heuristicheuristic is a rough guide, a “rule of thumb” is a rough guide, a “rule of thumb”

Limits to the Method in the Social Limits to the Method in the Social SciencesSciences

Many people question whether it is, in fact, appropriate to use the scientific Many people question whether it is, in fact, appropriate to use the scientific method in the social sciences. They argue, quite correctly, that unlike natural method in the social sciences. They argue, quite correctly, that unlike natural scientists, we cannot control experiments in laboratories; after all, we tend to scientists, we cannot control experiments in laboratories; after all, we tend to observe human behavior and that behavior is much more wilfull and observe human behavior and that behavior is much more wilfull and unpredictable than that of atoms! In fact, social scientists use what Campbell unpredictable than that of atoms! In fact, social scientists use what Campbell (1962) called ‘quasi-experiments’. What he meant was that, while we cannot (1962) called ‘quasi-experiments’. What he meant was that, while we cannot control human behavior in a laboratory setting (and even if we could, it would control human behavior in a laboratory setting (and even if we could, it would be highly unethical and undesirable!), we can use careful observation and be highly unethical and undesirable!), we can use careful observation and statistics to approximate the conditions under which natural scientists work. statistics to approximate the conditions under which natural scientists work. For a social scientist, the modern laboratory is the computer!For a social scientist, the modern laboratory is the computer!

This gives us the following distinction; natural sciences are predominantly This gives us the following distinction; natural sciences are predominantly deterministic , meaning that we can definitively identify universal laws (e.g. deterministic , meaning that we can definitively identify universal laws (e.g. the law of gravity), whereas the social sciences are predominantly the law of gravity), whereas the social sciences are predominantly probabilistic, meaning that we can only say that, all things being equal, certain probabilistic, meaning that we can only say that, all things being equal, certain relationships are true most of the time. Critics of the social sciences see this relationships are true most of the time. Critics of the social sciences see this as the biggest flaw in what we do.as the biggest flaw in what we do.

Finally, in the social sciences we not only use numbers but we also use Finally, in the social sciences we not only use numbers but we also use everyday observations in non-statistical form. This we call qualitative data, everyday observations in non-statistical form. This we call qualitative data, and it is different from the numbers used by most scientists, i.e. quantitativeand it is different from the numbers used by most scientists, i.e. quantitative

Logical FallaciesLogical Fallacies Finally, you should read the text and make sure that you are Finally, you should read the text and make sure that you are

familiar with the following flaws in logical reasoning:familiar with the following flaws in logical reasoning: Ecological fallacyEcological fallacy TautologiesTautologies Post hoc ergo propter hocPost hoc ergo propter hoc A fortioriA fortiori False analogiesFalse analogies False inferencesFalse inferences ReductivismReductivism