The document discusses explanations and predictions. It provides an example of explaining the 1989 revolution in East Germany. To explain why many people participated in protests, a possible explanation is that many were dissatisfied with living conditions and decided to protest. However, this explanation has problems, as it's unclear what specifically caused people to protest. The document discusses testing explanations and formulating theories about general social phenomena to provide more rigorous explanations.

1. EXPLANATIONS &
PREDICTIONS
AT
Explanation
&
Prediction

2. AT
Application of
theories
Application of
theories
At the beginning of the first class I asked if
anyone could tell me what they thought this
course was about…
A minute later only silence
Does anyone knows what this course is about?

3. AT
ExplanationsExplanations
What makes a good one?
A good explanation should be,according to Lave & March:
Simple: Don’t use many assumptions, so the mechanism can be
clearly observed
Surprising: This could be an indicator that you are onto something
new; an important contribution
Fertile: It should not only focus on the particular problem but
inform about more general phenomena

4. AT
ExamplesExamples
We have looked and will look to many of them
Keep in mind this course is not about the content of this
examples
Today we will talk about revolution, political protest
But if you really want to know about political protest you need to
dive more into the literature
We will come up with possible explanations
Our focus is about how to derive explanations that are adequate,
scientific, theoretically grounded, logically correct

5. AT
Brief SummaryBrief Summary
Where have all the criminals gone?
Steven Levitt Stephen Dubner

6. AT
Why was there a drop in violent
crime in the U.S. since the 1990’s?
There was a drop in violent
crimes in the U.S. since 1990
Observe a phenomenon
Speculate about it
There were multiple
explanations given, ranging
from police enforcement to
increase in economic welfare
Not all speculated causes
explained the drop. Those
“valid” explanations
accounted for 50%
Ask if the implications correctDeduce other results
If an increase in welfare
decreases violent crime,
then we should see this in
other states or time points
Why was there a drop in violent
crime in the U.S. since the 1990’s?

7. AT
Surprising Explanation:
Abortion
Legalization of abortion leads to less unwanted
children
Unwanted children are more likely to become
criminals
The legalization of abortion leads to less
criminals (a drop in crime).
HOW can we test this?
Surprising Explanation:
Abortion

8. AT
Sociological
research questions
Explanation & Prediction
Sociological
research questions

9. AT
We want to
explain/predict
social phenomena
You formulate why-questions
when you seek to explain !
a social phenomenon.
These questions are related to
predictions about social
phenomena.
Why was there a revolution
in Eastern Germany in 1989?
Will there be a revolution in
Iran?
We want to
explain/predict
social phenomena
Why was there in the late
19th century more suicides
among protestants than among
catholics?
Will there be more suicides
among protestants than among
catholics in the Netherlands in
2014?

10. AT
Aim of the LectureAim of the Lecture
In this lecture we will learn:
How to explain and/or predict phenomena.
Checklist.
Which criteria define an adequate explanation or prediction?
What is the problem of induction?
Frequently encountered problems with explanations

11. AT
Part 1: How to
explain/predict
social phenomena?
Part 1: How to
explain/predict
social phenomena?

12. AT
Starting Example
Revolution in Eastern Germany
Starting Example

13. AT
Why was there a revolution in Eastern Germany in 1989?
Summer 1989: The East German government praised (on t.v.) the
decision to use violence against the Tiananmen Square protesters.
Example:Example:

14. AT
Why was there a revolution in Eastern Germany in 1989?
Sept. 4, 1989: Demonstrations began at St. Nicholas church in Leipzig
Example:Example:

15. AT
Why was there a revolution in Eastern Germany in 1989?
Oct. 2, 1989: Eric Honecker issued a shoot to kill order; huge
police militia, Stasi, and work-combat troop presence.
Example:Example:

16. AT
Why was there a revolution in Eastern Germany in 1989?
Oct. 9, 1989: Biggest peaceful demonstration. Military surrounded
the demonstration but did not take action.
Example:Example:

17. AT
Why was there a revolution in Eastern Germany in 1989?
Oct. 18, 1989: Honecker had to resign.
Example:Example:

18. AT
Why was there a revolution in Eastern Germany in 1989?
Nov. 9, 1989: Fall of the Berlin wall.
Example:Example:

19. AT
Why was there a revolution in Eastern Germany in 1989?
Oct. 3, 1990: German reunification.
Example:Example:

20. AT
To explain the revolution,many (sub)questions need to be
answered.
Why did people do this?
Why did officials eventually not order to shoot to the protestors?
However, one of the most interesting questions is:
Why did so many people participate in the protest in Leipzig?
How can we explain this phenomenon?
What would theories suggest? Collective action, rational choice?
For example:
Why did people do this?
Why did Honecker decide to resign?
Why didn’t the soviet army intervene? (it had happened before)

21. AT
We are focusing on a specific historical phenomenon
Singular phenomenon
Also known as singular phenomenon or singular statement.
Something that actually took place
But, typically theories deal with broader phenomena
This is ideally what we would like to do
But it starts from understanding this particular event
We seek to explain this particular protest
Singular Phenomenon

22. AT
Participation in Monday
Demonstrations
Source: Table 1 from Braun, Norman. 1995.
Individual Thresholds and Social Diffusion.
Rationality and Society 7:167-182.
0
125,000
250,000
375,000
500,000
Sept25 Oct2 Oct9 Oct16 Oct23 Oct30 Nov6
Participants
Participation in Monday
Demonstrations

23. AT
There are all sorts of explanations we could give to this
phenomenon
Not so easy to explain
What is the process underlying what we observe?
What is going on?
Not so easy to explain

24. AT
Let’s give it a first try
Question. Why did many people participate in the protests?
Let’s give it a first try
A possible explanation

25. AT
Let’s give it a first try
Question. Why did many people participate in the protests?
Answer. Many people were very dissatisfied with the living
conditions in Eastern Germany and therefore decided to protest.
Let’s give it a first try
We observe dissatisfaction
and protest, but… How do we
know one caused the other?

26. AT
Let’s give it a first try
Question. Why did many people participate in the protests?
Answer. Many people were very dissatisfied with the living
conditions in Eastern Germany and therefore decided to protest.
Problem. How do we know that it was the dissatisfaction with
the living conditions? People were dissatisfied with many things
(no freedom of press, repression).
Let’s give it a first try
How can we test it?

27. AT
Let’s give it a first try
Question. Why did many people participate in the protests?
Answer. Many people were very dissatisfied with the living
conditions in Eastern Germany and therefore decided to protest.
Problem. How do we know that it was the dissatisfaction with
the living conditions? People were dissatisfied with many things
(no freedom of press, repression).
Defense. But we observed that in 1989 many people in Leipzig
were dissatisfied with the living conditions.
Let’s give it a first try

28. AT
Let’s give it a first try
Question. Why did many people participate in the protests?
Answer. Many people were very dissatisfied with the living
conditions in Eastern Germany and therefore decided to protest.
Problem. How do we know that it was the dissatisfaction with
the living conditions? People were dissatisfied with many things
(no freedom of press, repression).
Defense. But we observed that in 1989 many people in Leipzig
were dissatisfied with the living conditions.
Still. Sure, but we observed many things this year (only in 1989
Steffi Graf and Boris Becker won Wimbledon). Why is this not the
reason?
Let’s give it a first try

29. AT
What are we doing
here?
Hempel & Oppenheim, pg. 153: Theories consist of general
statements (laws, or “law-like”) which are not restricted to certain
objects, or certain dates or places.
What are we doing
here?
We try to formulate the “laws” or “processes” that could
have produced the phenomenon. We express these in
theories... and test the theories.
Law: if people are dissatisfied with their
living conditions then they will protest

30. AT
The Covering Law Model
Carl Gustav Hempel
1905-1997
General method of explaining and predicting
The Covering Law Model
Alternative names:
Deductive-nomological model (D-N Model)
Subsumption theory
Hempel’s model
Hempel-Oppenheim model
Popper-Hempel model of explanation

31. AT
Question
Why did many people participated in the protest?
Question
We could give an answer in this form (the H&O scheme)
In general, when many people are dissatisfied
with their living conditions they will protest.
General law
Applies to all societies in the world
also to those we have not observed yet
and to those we will never observe
IT IS GENERAL!

32. AT
Question
Why did many people participated in the protest?
Question
We could give an answer in this form (the H&O scheme)
In general, when many people are dissatisfied
with their living conditions they will protest.
General law
SPECIFIC
CONDITION
In Leipzig 1989, many people were
dissatisfied with their living conditions
It is a concrete empirical statement
about something that really exists

33. AT
Question
Why did many people participated in the protest?
Question
We could give an answer in this form (the H&O scheme)
In general, when many people are dissatisfied
with their living conditions they will protest.
General law
SPECIFIC
CONDITION
In Leipzig 1989, many people were
dissatisfied with their living conditions
Explanation In Leipzig 1989, many people protested
If GL and SC are true,
the explanation logically follows from it

34. AT
The H&O model
Terms
The H&O model
The thing that explains
The thing that needs to be explained
Explanans
Explanandum
General Law
Singular Statement
Conclusion
Explanans
Explanandum

35. AT
General StructureGeneral Structure
In general, when many people are dissatisfied
with their living conditions they will protest.
In Leipzig 1989, many people were
dissatisfied with their living conditions
In Leipzig 1989, many people protested
Law: It is true for all x: if Dx, then Px
Singular statement: Da
Singular statement: Pa
a is a subset of x (individuals who lived in
1989 in Leipzig are “people”).

36. AT
The H&O model
Conditions
The H&O model
General Law
Singular Statement
Conclusion
Explanans
Explanandum
The explanandum must be a logical consequence of the explanans
The explanans must contain at least one general law and at least
one singular statement
The explanans must have empirical content
All statements of the explanans must be true

37. AT
Problem
What is a problem with this explanation?
Problem
In general, when many people are dissatisfied
with their living conditions they will protest.
In Leipzig 1989, many people were
dissatisfied with their living conditions
How much is many?
In Leipzig 1989, many people protested
What if we had said: In Leipzig in 1989, 43 people…
It is fundamental that you operationalize your
concepts to be able to test them empirically

38. AT
Assumptions
What things are we assuming
implicitly to make the argument work?
Assumptions
In general, when many people are dissatisfied with their living
conditions they will protest.
In Leipzig 1989, many people were dissatisfied with their
living conditions
1. Leipzig is a society
In Leipzig 1989, many people protested
Suppose in 1989 the GDR was a society but a single city wasn’t.
Then the argument doesn’t hold anymore

39. AT
Important
Concepts used belong to the same categories
Important
In general, when many people are dissatisfied
with their living conditions they will protest.
In Leipzig 1989, many people were
dissatisfied with their living conditions
In Leipzig 1989, many people signed a petition
What’s wrong?

40. AT
General StructureGeneral Structure
Law: It is true for all x: if Dx, then Px
Singular statement: Da
Singular statement: Pa
Either the then-component of the law is identical to
the explanandum or it is a subset of the explanandum.
Signing a petition is a form of protest but the inference is not
correct,because people might have protested in another way.

41. AT
Important
Another example
Important
In general, when many people are dissatisfied
with their living conditions they will protest.
In Leipzig 1989, many people were
dissatisfied with their living conditions
In Leipzig 1989, many people were politically active
Is it right or wrong?

42. AT
Important
Protest is one form of political action (among e.g.,voting).The
law includes that there will be more protest.As this is a political
action,also political action will increase.
Important
Thus, the explanandum
follows from the explanans.
Political action
Protest
Signing a petition

43. AT
A classic sociological
example
Emile Durkheim
1858-1917
Durkheim’s theory of suicide
A classic sociological
example

44. AT
Example: Durkheim’s
theory of suicide
Example: Durkheim’s
theory of suicide
Source: Finlay, W. “What is sociology”, http://
www.arches.uga.edu/%7Ewfinlay/
SOCI1101H.htm, Retrieved November 2005.
0
50
100
150
200
<50% 50%-90% >90%
Suicide rate per milliollion Inhabitants
The explanandum:
(Between 1867 and 1875 in Bavaria), the larger the proportion of
catholics in a province, the less likely people in that province
were to commit suicide.

45. AT
This explanandum has a bit different structure. “The more Kx, the less
Sy”. This is what you often encounter in real explanation problems.
In principle, the same methods can be used for this. Here is a
reconstruction of Durkheim’s explanation:
The more the members of a religious group are integrated
in this group, the less likely they commit suicide (L1)
Explanandum (E).
In Bavaria, between 1867 and 1875: Catholics were more
integrated in their religious groups than protestants (C1).
In Bavaria, between 1867 and 1875: catholics were less
likely to commit suicide than protestants.

46. AT
Many further conditions have been added. The following
are minimal conditions.
Part 2: Conditions of
adequacy
Part 2: Conditions of
adequacy
These conditions need to be met. Otherwise, the
explanation is not “sound”
They have been formulated by Hempel and Oppenheim.

47. AT
Condition 1:Condition 1:
The explanandum must be a logical consequence of the explanans
This means:
Next week, you will learn how to check this condition.
If all statements in the explanans are true, then the explanandum
must be true too.

48. AT
Note that the singular statement is not needed when we
want to explain a law. For example, derive a more specific law
from a more general law.
Example:
Integration -> people follow all norms more!
Integration -> people follow the norm “do not commit suicide” more
Condition 2:Condition 2:
The explanans must contain at least one general law and at least one
singular statement!
&!
Both must be actually required to logically derive the explanandum

49. AT
Example:
The law “if there is anomie in a society, then people will be truly unhappy” is
not testable, because “anomie” and “truly unhappy” are (yet) undefined.
This means:
The explanans must inform about reality. In other words, it must
consist of or generate testable statements (and could be wrong).
Condition 3:Condition 3:
The explanans must have empirical content

50. AT
This condition is debated a lot:
A “law” is universal and therefore it is hard to prove it is true.
Milton Friedman
1912-2006
Nobel 1976: Monetarism
Explanans can be wrong,!
what counts is a correct
prediction
But don’t we strive for
good explanations and not
just for good predictions?
Simplicity + Fertility +
Surprise + Empirical Support
Condition 4:Condition 4:
All statements of the explanans must be true

51. AT
Probabilistic LawsProbabilistic Laws

52. AT
Until now:
We have focused on deterministic laws. In practice,
however, most theories make probabilistic statements.
Example:
Probabilistic LawsProbabilistic Laws
If in a society many people are dissatisfied with their living conditions,
a revolution is likely!
!
In 1989 in the GDR many people were dissatisfied with their living
conditions.!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - !
In 1989 in the GDR, a revolution was likely

53. AT
Problem 1 with
probabilistic laws
Problem 1 with
probabilistic laws
If in a society many people are dissatisfied with their living conditions, a
revolution is likely!
!
In 1989 in the GDR many people were dissatisfied with their living conditions.!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - !
In 1989 in the GDR, a revolution was likely
What if there had not been a revolution in 1989 in the GDR?Would we consider
the law to be wrong?
No, because the law is about all possible societies, but our study focused
on just one society. Thus, one case does not prove that it is not more likely
to have a revolution if many people are dissatisfied.
To avoid this problem, scientists (implicitly) use reformulations of the
law like this: If we observe a large number of societies, we will see more
revolutions in societies in which more people are dissatisfied

54. AT
Based on a weighted scale:
Share of the population that is under
25 (35%)!
Number of years the government has
been in power (15%)!
Corruption (15%)!
Lack of democracy (15%)!
GDP per person (10%)!
Index of censorship (5%)!
Absolute number of people younger
than 25 (5%)
(not just for explanation,but also for prediction)
Example: The Arab
Spring
Example: The Arab
Spring
Source: The Economist (Feb. 12th, 2011)!
Aim: “to predict where the scent of jasmine
may spread next” !
(after Tunisia, before Egypt)

55. AT
Is this a valid argument?!
No, because the law does not allow for exceptions and this case
might be one.!
!
Thus, probabilistic laws are problematic when we use them to
explain very specific events.
Assume that we want to explain something very specific. For
instance, why did more people protest in Leipzig than in Berlin?
Problem 2 with
probabilistic laws
Problem 2 with
probabilistic laws
In cities with more government officials, people are less likely to protest!
!
There were more government officials in Berlin than in Leipzig!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In Berlin, fewer people protested

56. AT
A single counterexample falsifies a general statement. Especially, in the
social sciences there is no law without an exception. Thus, do we have laws
that we can use?!
!
This is an important problem, and there is no solution to it. But this is an
important reason why in the practice of research we often work with
probabilistic laws, or seek for more general theories that explain the exception.
Problems with the
covering law model
Asymmetry Problem
The explanandum follows logically correct from the explanans.
Nevertheless, a falling barometer does not cause a storm.
Problems with the
covering law model
The barometer is falling rapidly!
Whenever the barometer is falling rapidly, a storm is approaching!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - !
A storm is approaching

57. AT
Part 3: Induction
Thus,is there a better method than
deduction?
Part 3: Induction

58. AT
Some social scientists argue that an inductive approach is better.
John Stuart Mill
1806-1873
Inductive reasoning means that one
generalizes from several observations to
general laws
The inductive
approach
The inductive
approach
During the French Revolution, many people were very dissatisfied with their living
conditions.!
In Leipzig 1989, many people were very dissatisfied with their living conditions!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -!
It is always true that there will be protest if people were very dissatisfied with their
living conditions.

59. AT
David Hume
1711-1776
David Hume, however, discovered a problem with
inductive reasoning
The covering law model is based on the deduction
principle. It tells us that if all statements of the explanans
are true, then the explanandum must be true as well. (This
follows from logic- see next week).
The deduction principle is a general statement (a law)
which is always true.
There is, however, no induction principle. To arrive at
one, one would need to use induction (= infer the general
principle from several single cases). Therefore, however,
you need an induction principle. To get this, in turn, you
need an induction principle.
Induction implies an infinite regress.This makes it
problematic.

60. AT
PredictionsPredictions

61. AT
Based on a weighted scale:
Share of the population that is
under 25 (35%)!
Number of years the government
has been in power (15%)!
Corruption (15%)!
Lack of democracy (15%)!
GDP per person (10%)!
Index of censorship (5%)!
Absolute number of people
younger than 25 (5%)
Predicting Revolutions/ The Shoe-Thrower’s index
Example: The Arab
Spring
Example: The Arab
Spring
Source: The Economist (Feb. 12th, 2011)!
Aim: “to predict where the scent of jasmine may spread next” !
(after Tunisia, before Egypt)

62. AT
This is the right way to do it.
Predictions are very similar to explanations,but they are not the same.
Explanation
Prediction
We want to find this
We know this
We know this
We want to find this
PredictionsPredictions
In general, if many people are dissatisfied with the living
conditions, then they will protest.!
In Leipzig 1989, many people were dissatisfied with the
living conditions.!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In Leipzig 1989, many people protested.
In general, if many people are dissatisfied with the living
conditions, then they will protest.!
Due to an embargo in Iran, many people’s satisfaction
with living costs will be low!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There will be a protest in Iran

63. AT
Problems with predictionsProblems with predictions
Most laws do not specify how long one has to wait until the
prediction will become true and for how long one can observe it. !
Thus, the prediction might be correct, but when we test it at the
wrong moment, we might not notice it.
Predictions often implicitly assume that all other conditions will
not change (ceteris paribus). !
This may be wrong. For instance, the government of Iran might
increase repression.
Often, the singular statements (conditions) need to be predicted as
well (e.g., there will be an embargo). !
This can lead to an infinite regress.
Self-fulfilling (e.g., bank run)

64. AT
Often predictions are data driven: Scientists measure a development in the
past (e.g., size of world population) and extrapolate developments in the
future.
Predictions without laws?Predictions without laws?
This approach presumes that observed trends will continue for ever. This
can be very wrong. Remember, for instance, the development of crime rates
in the U.S.

65. AT
Part 4: Check List &
Final Example
Part 4: Check List &
Final Example

66. AT
Check List
Try to include in the explanans theoretically plausible or empirically
supported statements (=assumptions). This is key if the prediction depends
very much on this particular assumption.!
Of course, statements which have not been tested and which are not
plausible can be true. So allow room for speculation!
Typical assumptions which appear innocent but often are crucial:
linearity, normal distribution, huge groups.!
!
Use one word to describe a concept. Avoid synonyms, or at least define
them explicitly. Never describe more than one phenomenon with one
concept.!
E.g., “socially integrated in a group”, “attached to the group”, “strongly
identifying with a group”, could all mean the same in theory (that can be
confusing).
when you develop an explanation or a prediction, take care of the
following things (in addition to checking the adequacy conditions.
Check List

67. AT
Formulate the laws as general as possible (see also next week)!
!
E.g., All students need to eat!
All humans need to eat!
All mammals need to eat!
!
However, sometimes generalization does not make sense!
All students follow the lecture!
All mammals follow the lecture!
!
If a statement is true, it does not imply that the generalized statement is true
as well (that would be induction).
Check List (II)Check List (II)

68. AT
However, the more general a statement is the more empirical content it
typically has. That is: the more testable statements you can derive from it.!
For instance, with a general theory of political protest, we can not only test
the theory of Leipzig 1989, but also France 1789 and for Iran 2013, etc.!
!
If you do not find the right laws, try to derive them from other, more
general laws.!
!
If the explanandum is complex, break it down to subproblems and tackle
them one-by-one (e.g., revolution -> protest).
Check List (III)Check List (III)

69. AT
How can we test Durkheim’s theory of suicide and social integration?
We need to find a condition (singular statement) about a difference in
integration in social group between people
Here is a suggestion:
C1: In the Netherlands, in the late 20th century, married people are more
integrated in social groups than are unmarried people.
(a bit more complicated)
A final exampleA final example
L1!
C1!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - !
E1: In the Netherlands, in the late 20th century, married
people will less likely commit suicide than unmarried people
L1: The more people are integrated in social groups, the less likely they
commit suicide.

70. AT
The test
Bron. Ultee, Aarts, Flap. 1996. Sociologie: vragen, uitspraken, bevindingen. Groningen: Wolters Nordhoff.
The test
E1: In the Netherlands, in the late 20th century, married people will less likely
commit suicide than unmarried people

71. AT
Why ceteris paribus
is so important
To be precise, all we can really plausibly assume is that more
integrated people are less likely to commit suicide than are people
who otherwise have the same characteristics, or
Ceteris paribus = all other things being equal
But are all other things equal between married and unmarried
people with regard to characteristics that matter for suicide?
Why ceteris paribus
is so important
L1: The more people are integrated in social groups, the less likely they
commit suicide.
E1: In the Netherlands, in the late 20th century, married people will less likely
commit suicide than unmarried people

72. AT
Another test
Bron. Ultee, Aarts, Flap. 1996. Sociologie: vragen, uitspraken, bevindingen. Groningen: Wolters Nordhoff.
Another test
E1: In the Netherlands, in the late 20th century, married people will less likely
commit suicide than unmarried people, all other things being equal

73. AT
Bron. Ultee, Aarts, Flap. 1996. Sociologie: vragen, uitspraken, bevindingen. Groningen: Wolters Nordhoff.
The testThe test
E1: In the Netherlands, in the late 20th century, married people will less likely
commit suicide than unmarried people

74. AT
You must read the paper about the revolution in
Eastern Germany (Opp & Gern) in your reader
For the tutorial