Seri Filsafat Hukum: Paradigma Post Positivisme

Summary

This transcript explains the differences between positivism and post-positivism in research paradigms. Post-positivism, as a continuation of positivism, challenges the idea of objective, perfect reality by introducing skepticism and the need for subjective interpretation. The script delves into ontological, epistemological, and methodological distinctions, such as the shift from objective certainty to probable truth, and the role of subjectivity in understanding reality. Through examples like judicial decision-making, it illustrates how post-positivism allows for deeper engagement with facts while recognizing their inherent imperfections.

Takeaways

• 😀 **Positivism vs. Postpositivism**: The script discusses the differences between positivism and postpositivism, explaining that postpositivism is a continuation (but a weaker version) of positivism.
• 😀 **Meaning of 'Post' and 'Neo'**: The term 'post' in postpositivism indicates something that comes after positivism, suggesting a more critical approach. In contrast, 'Neo' in terms like neoliberalism implies a stronger or more intense form of something.
• 😀 **Ontology in Positivism and Postpositivism**: While positivism views reality as perfect and objective, postpositivism sees reality as external, objective, and real, but not necessarily perfect, acknowledging the limits of human understanding.
• 😀 **Epistemology Shift**: In positivism, knowledge is objective and external, with a clear distinction between subject and object. Postpositivism modifies this dualism, making the relationship between subject and object more interconnected.
• 😀 **Role of the Subject**: In postpositivism, the subject plays an active role in critically understanding and interpreting reality, whereas positivism keeps the subject separate from the object of study.
• 😀 **Methodological Differences**: Positivism uses experimental and manipulative methods with an emphasis on verification. Postpositivism, on the other hand, introduces falsification and uses more flexible methods like triangulation and critical multiperspective approaches.
• 😀 **Scientific Method**: Positivist research seeks empirical validation, while postpositivist research is more about testing possibilities and acknowledging uncertainty and approximation of truth.
• 😀 **Kuhn's Influence**: Postpositivism challenges the strict objectivity of positivism, embracing the idea that scientific knowledge is never fully objective or absolute, instead open to revision and contextual understanding.
• 😀 **Practical Example in Law**: The example of a judge in a theft case illustrates the difference between positivism and postpositivism. A positivist judge would strictly apply the law (objective), while a postpositivist judge might consider the context and the defendant's circumstances (subjective).
• 😀 **Subjektivism in Legal Decisions**: In a postpositivist legal context, a judge can interpret laws more flexibly, acknowledging the importance of subjective context in decision-making, while still basing judgment on objective law.

Q & A

What is the main difference between positivism and postpositivism?

Positivism views reality as external, objective, and perfect, while postpositivism sees reality as external and objective but not perfect. Postpositivism recognizes human limitations in understanding reality, and it introduces skepticism about the certainty of knowledge.

What does the term 'post' in postpositivism signify?

'Post' in postpositivism indicates a continuation or development after positivism. It implies that postpositivism is a modification of positivism that critiques the idea of an entirely objective and perfect reality, emphasizing that knowledge is always subject to approximation and uncertainty.

How does the ontological view of reality differ between positivism and postpositivism?

In positivism, reality is viewed as external, objective, and perfect, meaning it can be fully understood and described. In contrast, postpositivism acknowledges that reality is still objective but imperfect and that it may not be fully understood due to human cognitive limitations.

What is the epistemological difference between positivism and postpositivism?

Positivism follows a strict dualist-objectivist epistemology, where the subject and object are separate, and knowledge is determined by the object. Postpositivism modifies this dualism, reducing the distance between the subject and object, allowing for a more subjective interpretation while still holding objectivity as the ultimate criterion.

How does the methodology in postpositivism differ from that in positivism?

Positivism uses empirical methods, verification, and experimental manipulation to confirm truth. Postpositivism, on the other hand, utilizes falsification (testing to show something might be false) and methods like triangulation, which involves using multiple sources or methods to verify the truth.

What role does subjectivity play in postpositivism?

In postpositivism, subjectivity plays a role in interpreting reality and knowledge. While reality is still seen as objective, postpositivists accept that the subject’s perspective, context, and cognitive limitations influence how reality is understood. This allows for a more nuanced approach to knowledge.

Can you explain the concept of falsification in postpositivism?

Falsification is a method in postpositivism where the goal is to test whether a theory or hypothesis can be proven false. Unlike verification, which seeks to confirm truth, falsification allows for the possibility that knowledge may be incorrect or incomplete.

How does triangulation function in postpositivist research methodology?

Triangulation in postpositivism involves using multiple methods, data sources, or theories to validate research findings. It helps to ensure the accuracy and reliability of results by providing a more comprehensive view of the phenomenon being studied.

How does postpositivism approach the concept of truth?

Postpositivism sees truth as not absolute but as something that can be approximated. Knowledge is considered to be tentative, and the truth is subject to change based on new evidence or more refined understanding. Truth is viewed as context-dependent and always open to revision.

How would a postpositivist judge approach a legal case differently from a positivist judge?

A postpositivist judge would approach a legal case by applying the law (e.g., a criminal statute) objectively, but also incorporating subjective elements such as the defendant’s background, context, or remorse. In contrast, a positivist judge would strictly apply the law as an objective and perfect standard, focusing solely on the facts without considering subjective factors.