It is important to understand these two branches of philosophy to understand the different ways we conceptualize our world and how that impacts us and the way research is conducted. These precise conceptualizations, in many ways, separate the natural sciences from the social sciences. Let’s start with Ontology first.
What is ontology?
Ontology is a branch of philosophy that studies assumptions about existence and definitions of reality. In a nutshell, it is the philosophical approach that studies what we consider to be real and what we don’t? Or, it answers the question — how do we see or think about about reality? Or, how do we decide what is real? Can there be something that is real for me but not real for you? Is what we consider to be real universal? That is, if it is real for me, it has to be real for you? And if so, how do we reach that conclusion and consensus? That is, it refers to the way the world is seen to be and what can be assumed about the nature and reality of the phenomena that make up the world.
For example, some people believe in the existence only of that which can be perceived with the five senses, while others claim that anything to which a noun refers exists.
Let’s take an example. Does the universe exist? Is there God? These questions can be sometimes difficult to answer. For example, does the universe exist? We can say that we can make a logical conclusion based on the knowledge that we currently have that the universe most likely exists. But we cannot draw a similar kind of logical conclusion to answer the question about the existence of God. But does that make it unreal for a person who believes in God? Is there a screen on which you are reading this? Is there a sun? Are there trees outside your home? Can you tell if someone suffers from anxiety? Or depression? Can you say for sure if a person is experiencing deep emotions? It seems like some of these questions are easy to answer because we can use our five senses and logical reasoning to confirm or deny whether something is exits or not. But it is difficult to make similar conclusions when we cannot either confirm or deny the existence of something or someone based on our five senses and logical reasoning. Anxiety could be very real for some people, even though we might not able to see. There are two types of ontology – objective or objectivism and subjective or subjectivism.
Objective ontology or Objectivism
Objectivism is the belief in an external reality whose existence is independent of knowledge of it; the world exists as an independent object waiting to be discovered. Since the reality is objective, it is equally accessible to any observer that can be verified independently using our five senses and logical reasoning. Independently here means that different people, all having the same relationship to an object, make similar observations about it. Their observations should not be biased by their personal views or the context in which they are embedded. If we claim something exists or is real, other people should be able to verify its existence independently without any bias. If I claim that there are trees outside my house, others should be able to verify the accuracy or correctness of that claim. In that sense, it is the “third-person” point of view or sometimes also referred to as extra-mental reality (existing outside the mind of the researcher). If it is real, I should be able to see it, you should be able to see it, and anyone and everyone should be able to see it.
Subjective ontology or Subjectivism
Subjectivism is a belief that you cannot know an external or objective reality apart from your subjective awareness of it; what we agree exists, exists for us, of and in our intersubjective[1] awareness. It is based on the ideas that social facts[2] are as real as objective facts. That is, if subjective beliefs affect our behavior just like objective reality, why should social facts be any different from objective facts? Subjectivists argue that there are many phenomena such as thoughts, feelings, and social processes that are difficult if not impossible to perceive using the five senses alone (objectively). Additionally, many subjective experiences and interpretative processes produce understanding that can be far superior precisely because it is so difficult to objectively represent subjective experiences. Social phenomena in particular (e.g., culture) would be unobservable if not for our capacity to experience and communicate intersubjectively. Furthermore, phenomena engaged subjectively are experienced differently depending on who is experiencing them and under what conditions they are perceived (e.g. good or bad mood, within one cultural context or another). In other words, it is the belief that knowledge of the world is subjective and that social reality only exists when we experience it and give it meaning.
The general agreement is that there are two types of reality, objective and subjective. Both are important and affect our understanding of our world differently. Both offer a unique aspect of reality that betters our understanding of the world. In certain situations, we rely on objective reality, while in others, subjective reality might make more sense. For example, we might rely on objective aspects of reality to find out the age of an ancient piece of art, but we might rely on subjective reality on deciding the worth of that piece of art.
Epistemology
Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that studies how we know and what counts as knowledge. Epistemology, the theory of knowledge, tackles issues of truth, belief, and justification. It involves answering questions such as ‘what is knowledge?’ and ‘how do we know,’ for instance, that this or that exists? How should we generate knowledge? What constitutes ‘good’ knowledge? For example, if we were interested in knowing about American values, how would we find out? Should we just ask a large segment of the population to define American values? What if, we were interested in knowing about difficulties people with allergies face in their day to day life? Or we were interested in finding a cure for a disease? You might have guessed that there are no simple answers to these questions. And even when we have the answer or the knowledge, how do we know if that is good? Will you believe me if I were to claim that drinking lemon juice cures cancer? Why not? Most likely because you do not know if my claim has any credibility to it or whether it is true. But if I tell you that I have a severe allergy and I can tell you about the difficulties I face in my day to day life, you will probably listen, as there is some credibility to my claims. Over the years we have established two ways in which we can ascertain the credibility of the knowledge: Positivism and Interpretivism.
Positivism
Positivism (sometimes also refereed to as logical positivism) is the belief that truth or knowledge can be discovered through valid conceptualization and reliable measurement, which allows the testing of knowledge against the objective world; knowledge accumulates, allowing humans to progress and evolve. That is we can discover truth or knowledge through scientific measurement and validation through direct and systematic observations of objective facts about behavior and systems. We can only rely on the empirical and rational way of knowing. Since empirical and rational ways of knowing the truth rely on objective reality, positivism believes in an objective reality that is waiting to be discovered, even though we might not be aware of it. For example, today we might not know the absolute best way to treat cancer, but if you keep on experimenting and making a systematic observations, engaging with the scientific method, one day we should be able to find it. And since positivism relies on objective facts, you do not have to take my word for it. Any person should be able to verify the validity of the claim. So, what is the best way to run a business? Organizational scientists, who believe in positivism, argue that as long as we keep experimenting with different components of an organization like the social structure, physical structure, culture, etc., and recording the results, one day we will find the absolute best way to run a business.
But what happens if you want to find out, say, what motivates people to work hard? It is difficult, if not impossible to find an objective answer to such a question because different people are motivated by different things. Additionally, how people define hard work would be different, especially in different countries and cultures. That is where interpretivism comes in.
Interpretivism
Interpretivism argues that positivism works great on physical objects. But human beings are not physical objects. Humans have agency or free will and we do not behave the same way in similar situations. Human behavior is not predictable like a physical object. In fact, we might behave in exactly the opposite way if we know we are being predictable. So interpretivism denies that humans can be studied using the same philosophical bases used to study physical objects. Interpretivists argue that there is a difference between the subject matter of Sociology and Natural Science. When humans are concerned, truth is often socially constructed. That is, truth is relative to the knower and can only be understood from the point of view of individuals who are directly involved. Truth is socially constructed via multiple interpretations by the subjects of knowledge (people who experience it), thereby they and their truth are co-constructed and change over time.
Interpretivism believes that knowledge is a matter of interpretation. We need to interpret the meanings, purposes, and intentions (interpretations) people give to their actions and interactions with others. This does not mean that they do not believe in objective reality or are non-realist but argues that our interpretations of those realities are not objective or “out there” waiting to be discovered. Interpretivism provides an alternate or better way to study humans and their interactions. Social realities are not something that we discover, but rather something that we construct.
For example, what does it mean to be a college student? Or what does it mean to be a basketball fan? Or what does it mean to be a parent? What does it mean to be a single child? Unless you are one, you cannot know. Similarly, rules of courtesy can be different in different cultures as they are subjective and only understood once you are part of that culture. What is considered to be beautiful, for example, is culturally agreed upon and subject to cultural interpretation. How we treat our incarcerated population, how we treat our mentally ill population, what needs to be done about homelessness, are all examples that mat be better understood and addressed by interpretivism rather than positivism.
Interrelation
Ontology and epistemology are intricately connected concepts. The way we define our reality (objective or subjective) enables or restricts the discovery of the truth. In the same way, how we know (epistemology) influences what can be known, thus shaping our ontological assumptions about what exists. For example, we cannot deny the existence of racism just because we cannot objectively measure it.
The theoretical perspective
Theoretical perspective evolves from similarities in the way phenomena are defined, theorized, and studied. Any theory that belongs to a particular theoretical perspective shares a common assumption about how it defines reality (ontology), and the way knowledge is created (epistemology). In this sense, it provides a framework through which researchers observe, define, and theorize society and human behavior as understood from the lens of a theoretical perspective.
Footnotes
[1] Intersubjectivity refers to shared understanding. Intersubjectivity recognizes that meaning is based on one’s position of reference and is socially mediated through interaction. In other words, knowing is not simply the product of individual minds in isolation.
[2] Social Facts are phenomena perceived by the individual as being both “external” (to that person) and “coercive” (backed by sanctions). For example, when people know that they are or might be observed (external to us), they are unlikely to engage in illegal activity because they fear punishment.
Bibliography
Ayer, A. J. (Ed.). (1959). Logical positivism. New York, NY: Free Press.
Hofweber, T. (Summer 2020). Logic and ontology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/
Miller, E. (1999). Positivism and clinical psychology. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 6, 1–6.
Steup, M., & Neta, R. (Fall 2020 ). Epistemology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/
Cite this article (APA)
Trivedi, C. (2020, November 16). Epistemology and Ontology – An explainer. ConcpetsHacked. https://conceptshacked.com/epistemology-and-ontology/
