Page 99 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, št. 3-4: K paradigmam raziskovanja vzgoje in izobraževanja, ur. Valerija Vendramin
P. 99
igor ž. žagar ■ between fallacies and more fallacies?
Or put differently: from a small circle perspective (micro-level),
what is going on within the biggest circle (macro-level) could easily be de-
scribed as fallacious (according to micro-level standards and criteria). And
what is going on within the biggest circle might be described as absolutely
correct, valid and/or sound (according to macro-level standards and crite-
ria), while the standards and criteria of the small(est) circle might easily be
described as fallacious (according to macro-level standards and criteria).
What is a bit surprising, even strange about this micro - macro relation-
ship, is that both levels (micro and macro) could and would use the same
“conceptual” grounds for declaring something as fallacy.
Here is an illustration from well-developed fields within humanities
and social sciences, the difference between macrohistory and microhisto-
ry (Steele 2006, www.guernicus.com):
A macrohistory takes a long view of history, looking at multiple societies
and nations over the course of centuries to reach broad-ranging conclu-
sions about the march of history. Using vast amounts of data – some ver-
ified but much of it estimated – the macrohistorian makes conjectures
based on averages. This approach might appear to have the most interest
on a general level, but often loses sight of local and individual differences.
When writing microhistory, the author concentrates upon a single indi-
vidual or community and through study and analysis, attempts to reach
97
Or put differently: from a small circle perspective (micro-level),
what is going on within the biggest circle (macro-level) could easily be de-
scribed as fallacious (according to micro-level standards and criteria). And
what is going on within the biggest circle might be described as absolutely
correct, valid and/or sound (according to macro-level standards and crite-
ria), while the standards and criteria of the small(est) circle might easily be
described as fallacious (according to macro-level standards and criteria).
What is a bit surprising, even strange about this micro - macro relation-
ship, is that both levels (micro and macro) could and would use the same
“conceptual” grounds for declaring something as fallacy.
Here is an illustration from well-developed fields within humanities
and social sciences, the difference between macrohistory and microhisto-
ry (Steele 2006, www.guernicus.com):
A macrohistory takes a long view of history, looking at multiple societies
and nations over the course of centuries to reach broad-ranging conclu-
sions about the march of history. Using vast amounts of data – some ver-
ified but much of it estimated – the macrohistorian makes conjectures
based on averages. This approach might appear to have the most interest
on a general level, but often loses sight of local and individual differences.
When writing microhistory, the author concentrates upon a single indi-
vidual or community and through study and analysis, attempts to reach
97
