Rational Choice and Security Studies pdf epub mobi txt 电子书 下载 2025
Michael E. Brown is Dean of the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University.
Owen Coté is Associate Director of the MIT Security Studies Program and Editor of the journal International Security.
Sean M. Lynn-Jones is Editor of International Security, the International Security Program's quarterly journal. He is also series editor of the Belfer Center Studies in International Security, the Program's book series that is published by MIT Press.
Steven E. Miller is director of the International Security Program at the Belfer Center.
- 方法论
- 政治学
- 国际关系
- 博弈论
- 安全研究
- 国关理论
- 比较政治
- 国际政治
Formal theories and rational choice methods have become increasingly prominent in most social sciences in the past few decades. Proponents of formal theoretical approaches argue that these methods are more scientific and sophisticated than other approaches, and that formal methods have already generated significant theoretical progress. As more and more social scientists adopt formal theoretical approaches, critics have argued that these methods are flawed and that they should not become dominant in most social-science disciplines.Rational Choice and Security Studies presents opposing views on the merits of formal rational choice approaches as they have been applied in the subfield of international security studies. This volume includes Stephen Walt's article "Rigor or Rigor Mortis? Rational Choice and Security Studies," critical replies from prominent political scientists, and Walt's rejoinder to his critics.Walt argues that formal approaches have not led to creative new theoretical explanations, that they lack empirical support, and that they have contributed little to the analysis of important contemporary security problems. In their replies, proponents of rational choice approaches emphasize that formal methods are essential for achieving theoretical consistency and precision.
具体描述
读后感
评分
评分
评分
评分
用户评价
沃尔特本以为可以舌战群儒，没想到却被群殴。沃尔特提出的几个点，基本上都很没道理，唯一比较有利的点是形式理论的经验研究都很敷衍（部分例外），但学术本来就有分工，有人做实证，有人做经验，有人两者都做。
评分沃尔特本以为可以舌战群儒，没想到却被群殴。沃尔特提出的几个点，基本上都很没道理，唯一比较有利的点是形式理论的经验研究都很敷衍（部分例外），但学术本来就有分工，有人做实证，有人做经验，有人两者都做。
评分沃尔特本以为可以舌战群儒，没想到却被群殴。沃尔特提出的几个点，基本上都很没道理，唯一比较有利的点是形式理论的经验研究都很敷衍（部分例外），但学术本来就有分工，有人做实证，有人做经验，有人两者都做。
评分沃尔特本以为可以舌战群儒，没想到却被群殴。沃尔特提出的几个点，基本上都很没道理，唯一比较有利的点是形式理论的经验研究都很敷衍（部分例外），但学术本来就有分工，有人做实证，有人做经验，有人两者都做。
评分沃尔特本以为可以舌战群儒，没想到却被群殴。沃尔特提出的几个点，基本上都很没道理，唯一比较有利的点是形式理论的经验研究都很敷衍（部分例外），但学术本来就有分工，有人做实证，有人做经验，有人两者都做。
相关图书
本站所有内容均为互联网搜索引擎提供的公开搜索信息，本站不存储任何数据与内容，任何内容与数据均与本站无关，如有需要请联系相关搜索引擎包括但不限于百度，google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 book.wenda123.org All Rights Reserved. 图书目录大全 版权所有