Session 4- Rejecting The Scientific Approach

The article "International Theory: The Case for a Classical Approach" puts emphasis on the importance of the classical approach and concludes that international relations is best understood through this approach rather than the scientific way. To begin with, Hedley Bull clearly distinguishes between the two dominant types of ways used to study international relations. The classical approach is not based upon evidence but rather observation whereas the scientific approach only focuses on empirical evidence and uses solid proof to support various hypotheses. From these hypothesis then emerge theories that have precision and rationality as their background and these theories are supported by facts and evidence and can even be formulated by using mathematics.

Bull, however, argues that scientific theories are reductionist. That is, complex events are reduced down to simple terms hence this makes the scientific approach less valid and reliable. Also, since political relations are based upon interaction between humans, Meta narratives cannot prove the reasons behind particular events because human behavior and intentions keep changing. Moreover, this approach requires quantification and human behavior cannot really be quantified into statistics and hard core data.

However, I believe that the scientific approach should not be completely rejected because ‘[b]y explanation the scientist understands nothing except the reduction to the least and simplest basic laws possible, beyond which he cannot go, but must plainly demand them; from them however he deduces the phenomena absolutely completely as necessary’ (Gauss). This shows that although this approach has its limitations, it provides a standard base against which theories about International Relations can be tested.

  

Therefore in conclusion, the best way to study International Relations would be through triangulation. That is, quantitative along with qualitative methods should be used for a better understanding.