The illusion of discipline continuation of the discussion on quantitative methods in international relation

This article continues the dispute about the application of quantitative methods in regard to international relations. In 2019, two groups of scholars published their critical reviews of my article “Statistic Against History”: 1) «Towards “Second Great Debate” in Russian IR» (by Denis Degterev); 2) «International Relations, Science without Method?” (by Igor Istomin, Andrey Baykov, Konstantin Khudoley). This paper consistently analyses the opponents's views and puts forward some counterarguments. The author emphasizes that natural sciences deal with long-term, relatively steady phenomena and processes, which are objective and mainly of repetitive character. This enables us to identify regular patterns in their structure, behaviour, development and changes. By contrast, in the sphere of arts it is extremely important to achieve agreement on basic concepts and ideas or, in other words, scientific convention. It is impossible to use here mathematical symbols or figures to describe the concepts in the sphere which is closely connected with historical context and systems of values, which changes with the time and depends on different variables. The objects of humanities are completely determined by such factors as society, historical context as well as the stance of the author on the issue. Any attempt to change even one of these may well lead to distortion of the meaning of a concept and thus will ruin the mathematical equation underlying it. These factors do not exist regardless of humans, so it is impossible to dismiss Aristotle's logic. Hence, any attempts of such an approach (through using quantitative methods) lead to methodological problems and even often to methodological nonsense.

1. Alekseeva (2017). Teoriya mezhdunarodnyh otnoshenij v zerkalah «nauchnyh kartin mira»: chto dal'she? [The theory of international relations in the mirrors of the "scientific pictures of the world": what's next?]. Sravnitel'naya politika. Vol. 8. No. 4. P. 30–41.

2. Barancheev V.P., Maslennikova N.P., Mishin V.M, (2014). Upravlenie innovaciyami [Innovation management]. Moscow: YUrajt. 711 p.

3. Blok M. (2003). Feodal'noe obshchestvo [Feudal society]. Moscow.: Izdatel'stvo imeni Sabashnikovyh. 504 p.

4. Degterev D.A. (2019). “Vtoroj bol'shoj spor” v kontekste stanovleniya rossijskoj nauki o mezhdunarodnyh otnosheniyah [Towards “Second Great Debate” in Russian IR]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 17. No. 2 (57). P. 43–62.

5. Del’bryuk G. (1999). Istoriya voennogo iskusstva v ramkah politicheskoj istorii [The history of military art in the framework of political history]. SPb., Novoye Vremya, 2011. 317 p.

6. Fenenko A.V. (2018). Statistika protiv istorii (Razmyshleniya o kolichestvennyh metodah v mezhdunarodnyh otnosheniyah) Statistics versus History [Statistics versus History (Thoughts On Quantitative Methods in International Studies]. Mezhdunarodnye processy. Vol. 6. No. 3. P. 56–83.

7. Fuko M. (1994). Slova i veshchi. Arheologiya gumanitarnyh nauk [Words and things. Archeology of the Humanities]. Saint Petersburg.: A-cad. 405 p.

8. Gelfand I. M., Minlos R. A., Shapiro Z. YA. (1958). Predstavlenie gruppy vrashchenij i gruppy Lorentsa [Representation of the rotation group and the Lorentz group]. Moscow: Fizmattis. 368 p.

9. Istomin I.A., Baykov A.A., Khudoley K.K. (2019). Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya. Nauka bez metoda? [International Relations, Science without Method?]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 17. No. 2 (57). P. 63–93.

10. KHramov Y.A. (1983). Fiziki. Biograficheskij spravochnik [Biographical reference book]. Moscow: Nauka. 400 p.

11. Klingberg F. (1970). Historical Periods, Trends and Cycles in International Relations. Journal of Conflict Resolution. No. 14. P. 505–511.

12. Kragh H. (1999). Quantum Generations: A History of Physics in the Twentieth Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 494 p.

13. Lave Ch., March J.G. (1975). An Introduction to Models in the Social Sciences. N.Y.: Harper & Row. 432 р.

14. Lawrence J. (1997). The Rise and Fall of the British Empire. N.Y.: St. Matrin’s Griffin. 744 p.

15. Lenin V.I. (1968). Materialism i Empiriocriticism [Materialism and Empirio-criticism]. In: Lenin V.I. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij. T. 18. Moscow: Izdatelstvo politicheskoj literatury. 525 p.

16. Lykken, J. D. (2010). Beyond the Standard Model. CERN Yellow Report. P. 101–109.

17. Mangejm J. B., Rich R.K. (1997). Politologiya: Metody issledovaniya [Political science: Research method]. Moscow: Ves' Mir. 544 p.

18. Medouz D. i dr. (1991). Predely rosta [Limits of growth]. Moscow: Izdatelstvo MGU. 205 p.

19. Melvil A.YU, Il'in M.V., Meleshkina E.YU. et al. (2008). Kak izmeryat' i sravnivat' urovni demokraticheskogo razvitiya v raznyh stranah? (Po materialam issledovatel'skogo proekta «Politicheskij atlas sovremennosti») [How to measure and compare the levels of democratic development in different countries? (Based on the materials of the research project "Political Atlas of Modernity")]. Moscow: MGIMO-Universitet. 135 p.

20. Mishin V.M. (2015). Issledovanie sistem upravleniya. 2-e izdanie. [Research of control systems. 2nd edition]. Moscow: YUNITI-Dana. 527 p.

21. Munck G., Verkuilen D. (2002). Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: Evaluating Alternative Indices. Comparative Political Studies. Vol. 35. No. 1. P. 5–34.

22. Newton R. (1985). Prestuplenie Klavdiya Ptolemeya [The crime of Claudius Ptolemy]. Moscow: Nauka. 384 p.

23. Pauli V. (1991). Teoriya otnositel'nosti [Theory of relativity]. Moscow: Nauka. 328 p.

24. Popper K. (1992). Otkrytoe obschestvo i ego vragi. T. 2 [Open Society and Its Enemies. Vol. 2]. Moscow: Kul’turnaya initsiativa. 525 p.

25. Porter A. (ed.) (1999). The Oxford History of the British Empire. Vol. III. The Nineteenth Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 800 p.

26. Prigozhin I., Stengers I. (1986). Poryadok iz haosa: Novyj dialog cheloveka s prirodoj [Order from chaos: A new dialogue between man and nature] Moscow: Progress. 432 p.

27. Poincare J.H. (1990). O nauke [About Science]. Moscow: Nauka. 735 p.

28. Ris E., Sternberg M. (2002). Vvedenie v molekulyarnuyu biologiyu: Ot kletok k atomam [Introduction to molecular biology: From cells to atoms]. Moscow. 142 p.

29. Smolin L. (2007). The trouble with physics: the rise of string theory, the fall of a science, and what comes next. London: Penguin Book. 416 р.

30. Spengler O. (1993). Zakat Evropy. Ocherki morfologii mirovoj istorii [The Decline of the West.Essays on the morphology of world history]. Vol. I. Moscow.: Mysl’. 672 p.

31. Tomilin K. A. (2006). Fundamental'nye fizicheskie postoyannye v istoricheskom i metodologicheskom aspektah [Fundamental physical constants in historical and methodological aspects]. Moscow: Fizmatlit, 2006. 368 p.

32. Tuchman B. (1999). Pervyj blitzkrieg. Avgust 1914 [The Guns of August]. Saint Petersburg: Terra Fantastika. 640 p.

33. Tsymburskij V.L. (1996). Sverhdlinnye voennye cikly i mirovaya politika [High-long military cycles and world politics]. Polis. 1996. No. 3. Р. 27–55.

34. Weber M. (1990). Izbrannye proizvedeniya [Selected Works]. Moscow: Progress. 808 p.

35. Wittgenstein L. (2018). Logiko-filosofskij traktat [Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus]. Moscow: AST. 158 p.

36. Yudin N.V. (2020). V poiskah nauki o mezhdunarodnyh otnosheniyah: vzglyad cherez prizmu kriticheskogo realizma [Searching for Science of International Relations insights from Critical Realism]. Mezhdunarodnye protsessy. Vol. 18. No. 1 (60). P. 135–151.

37. Zen’kovskij V. (2001). Istoriya russkoj filosofii [History of Russian Philosophy]. Moscow: Akademicheskij proekt. 880 p.