Explanation and progress in security studies

At the heart of this book is the question of why there has been so little progress in knowledge about International Relations (IR). Specifically, Fred Chernoff is concerned with the lack of what he terms ‘approach-to-consensus’. By this he means the acceptance of some answers and theories as providing better explanations than their alternatives. He wonders whether the lack of consensus may be ascribed to the fact that scholars use different criteria to evaluate their explanations. The book makes a case that this is indeed so. Consequently, Chernoff proposes that more careful specification of evaluative criteria would improve mutual engagement among scholars and lead to greater agreement about the best possible explanations. Following a brief introduction which outlines the central research question and the possible ways of answering it, chapters one and two deal with the key moves in the philosophy of science underpinning the book. Particularly important is the argument derived from the work of Thomas Kuhn, namely that ‘classic scientific publications implicitly define methods and key concepts, including what is to count as a compelling scientific argument or good explanation’ (p. 14). The argument shapes decisively the book's research design in chapters three to five. It also allows for the development of Chernoff's larger thesis. Influential works in various areas of security studies do not reach consensus on what is a good explanation, because they either do not specify their criteria of a good explanation or such criteria differ

Argument (complex analysis · Bridging (networking · Computer security · Economics · Epistemology · Positive economics · Sociology · Underpinning · Computer Science · Engineering · Intelligence, Security, War Strategy · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Medicine · Nuclear Issues and Defense · Philosophy