Layers of Future and the Problem of Human Actions Formulation: Epistemological Foundations of Casual Layered Analysis Method

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Post-Doctoral research follow in Research center of Science, Technology and innovation policy and Diplomacy- Iranian Research Organization for Science and Technology (IROST)

Abstract

Purpose: In expression of Casual Layered Analysis, when Soheil Inayatullah separates four layers of future; he meets a foundational problem in social science that how human actions explained in social context? The paper works on this challenge.
Methods: In this paper, we first survey casual layered analysis briefly; then study the dialing of this method with a fundamental problem of social science with explaining of humanistic action in social context and shows the resemblance of Inaytullah methods with thoughts of Roy Bhaskar’s critical realism, Karl Popper’s falsifiability and Friedrich von Hayek’s ideas for the problem.
Findings: Our analyses and corresponds four layers to four types of future study leads to two critiques. First, Inayatullah denies the possible usage of mathematical tools for Litany layer and he somehow confirms the non-empirical views, second after surveying mathematical and philosophical idea of hierarchy in the first half of the twentieth century. this criticism and question come up in common understanding that how many facts are there that has been talked so reckless about levels of reality and future?
Conclusion: based on hierarchy theory, when Inayatullah separates the layers of future; he refers an index to each layer, which differs with ordinary and conventional understanding of the future.

Keywords

References

  1. References

    1. Adison, J. W. (1960). “The Theory of Hierarchies”, in Proceedings of the 1960 International Congress on Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, Nagel, E., Suppes, P., Tarski, A. (Ed.). Stanford University Press
    2. Bahari, M. (2011). Critical Realism and Future Study, Master of Science Dissertation, Tehran: Sharif University of Technology..(in Persian)
    3. Benton, T. and Craib, I. (2010). Philosophy of Social Sciences, Translated by Mosamaparast, Sh. And Mottahed, M. Tehran: Agah Publication.(in Persian)
    4. Dator, Jim. (2002). Advancing Futures: Futures Studies in Higher Education. London, UK: Praeger.
    5. Gartner, R. (2009). “Historical Explanation”, in Philosophy of science, Soroush, A. (ed.). Tehran: Sarat..(in Persian)
    6. Habermas, J. (1981). The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol. 1, Translated by McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.
    7. Hempel, C. G. (1962). “The Function of General laws in History”, The Journal of Philosophy. 39, pp. 35-48.
    8. Inayatullah, S. (1998). “Causal Layered Analysis: Poststructuralism as method”. Futures. Vol. 30, No. 8, pp. 815–829
    9. Inayatullah, S. (2007). Questioning The Future, Tamkang University Press.
    10. Inayatullah, S. and Milojevi, I. (2016), CLA 2.0: transformative research in theory and practice. Translated by Uosefian, M. and Mobaseri, M. Tehran: Shakib..(in Persian)
    11. Khosravi, M. (2008). “ The non- sensical Criteria in Carnap’s rejection of Heidegger”, Tehran: The Third annual Seminar on philosophy of science, Sharif University of Technology..(in Persian)
    12. Khosravi, M. and Akrami, M. (2013). “Game theory in the philosophy of social sciences”, Quarterly Journal of Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities (MSSH), 20.80. PP. 35-53..(in Persian)
    13. Little, D. (2002), Explanation in the Social Sciences, Translated by Soroush, A., Tehran: Serat Pub..(in Persian)
    14. MacIntyre, Alsder, (1984). After Virtue. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
    15. Mill, J. S. (1967). “On the Definition of Political Economy; and on the Method of Philosophical Investigation”. in that Science, London and Westminster Review, 26 (1836), 1–29; citations are from 1844 ed. repr.in id., Collected Works of John Stuart Mill. ed. J. Robson (Toronto: University of Toronto Press), 309–339
    16. Popper, C. (2011), “an essays in the Logic of Social Sciences”. in The Logic of Social Sciences, in Tehran: Jamee-Shenasan Pub..(in Persian)
    17. Ramos, Jose M. (2014). “Transcendence of a method: the story of causal layered analysis”. in Inayatullah, S. (Ed.). The causal layered analysis reader, Taipei: Tamkang University Publication.
    18. Soroush, A. (1988). “Cause and reason in social sciences”, Sociological Review, 1,1. PP. 53-72.(in Persian)

     

     

     

Journal of Iran Futures Studies
Volume 4, Issue 1 - Serial Number 6
September 2019
Pages 101-116

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics