Reply to Kammeyer and skidmore
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10970558 |
|---|---|
| Authors | David J Loschky (University of Missouri, corresponding author), William C Wilcox (University of Missouri) |
| Year | 1975 |
| Volume | 12 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 351-360 |
| Publication date | 1975-05-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Demography (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0070-3370 • E-ISSN: 1533-7790 |
| Publisher | Duke University Press (PUBLISHER • US) |
| DOI | 10.2307/2060774 |
| PMID | 1157997 |
| OpenAlex | W1553433504 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 8 |
Kenneth Kammeyer and Arthur Skidmore's critical examination of our attack upon Transition Theory focuses upon nearly every substantive point which could be raised. They question the value of a forcing theory, the correspondence between our formalization and accepted Transition Theory, and our particular use of symbolic logic. Furthermore, they leave few stones unturned within each category. As with any broad attack, we find some points with which we have some sympathy and, as should not surprise most readers, many with which we have little sympathy. We argue below that Transition Theory must be forcing in some of its facets but perhaps not in others. We argue that our formalization does indeed fit that version which they stress, the thesis of Davis, and{we argue it also is applicable to a variety of others despite our characterization of this formalization as a diffusion version. As regards our use of excessive formalizations, we can say little other than the proof of the pudding is in the eating. As fare we offer a new proof showing that some conclusions which Kammeyer and Skidmore apparently feel are obvious inferences from Transition Theory in fact cannot be deduced from it. And, in conclusion, we agree that much remains to be done. What we have presented is no more than a start toward an explicitly formalized theory from which standard lists of inferences have been derived. SHOULD TRANSITION THEORY BE FORCING? Central to Kammeyer and Skidmore's criticism is the assertion that Transition Theory need not be forcing. In their view a non-forcing contingent theory is more flexible and on that ground is more desirable. They see no merit to a theory in which societies must move through the transition. In some respects we concede the point. If the theory were to be forcing in all stages, then it would predict that each and every society would inevitably move from stage one on through two into stage three. We show (proof one, Loschky and Wilcox, 1974, p. 222) that this inference cannot be deduced from Transition Theory as we formalize it. This means societies can stay in stage one forever. Commenting upon this proof we stated, Such a conclusion, while not contrary to the facts as we now know them, certainly is contrary to our expectations concerning population dynamics (p. 222). We are not adament on this point. As a personal note, we do feel it very likely that before the end of this century there will be no society in which death rates are permitted to remain at stage one levels. But this is surely conjecture. If we are correct, then we would wish to have a theory which could predict this for us, and we might prefer one which unequivocably forced the move for human populations. This point is debatable. But there can be no debate concern
Assertion · Criticism · Epistemology · Forcing (mathematics · Political science · Sociology · Surprise · Sympathy · Transition (genetics · Value (mathematics · Variety (cybernetics · Artificial Intelligence · Complex Systems and Decision Making · Computer Science · Law · Mathematics · Philosophy · Philosophy and History of Science · Psychology · Social Psychology · Sustainability and Ecological Systems Analysis
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |