This entry was posted
on Friday, December 23rd, 2011 at 4:44 pm and is filed under Social Sciences.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
As a social scientist myself, I have to take the stance of sociologist Weber when understanding the study of society as a science. We should TRY to be objective in our research with the ultimate realisation that factual objectivity in social science is not truely attainable. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to be scientific about our research. It means we should analyse subjectively for added validity to help our understanding of society as a reality. A worthy cause for a better understanding.
There are plenty of areas within natural and life sciences that are the same but they are still considered sciences. The complexity of the object of study and the impossibility of creating ‘closed’ systems does not negate the development of a science but does impose limits upon what it can do. I’d emphasise such limits to be temporal though and think there is scope for massive gains to be made in the future.
@GiantDanish depends which social science. even in psych you have falsifiable, testable predictions. something like sociology is pretty well bs. and with psych, it mostly depends on chem/bio, the study of which into the mind is very young.
Its funny how so many people who deny the validity of Psychology and call it ‘pseudo science’ continue to uphold the validity and importance of the IQ test which was developed by these same ‘pseudo scientists’.
@conectado2 What about biology? It is a natural science, with convincing experimental data to support its theories. Just because biology is not laden with formulas, it doesn’t invalidate it as a science. Biological system can be explained through chemistry and ultimately physics. The social sciences are nowhere near as scientifically rigorous as biology.
@sreba68 And hence, the social sciences are not sciences. They are not really falsifiable, they dont make testable predictions. They make rough models. It shouldn’t be called science if it isn’t.
That is not really true. Modern theories of science do not provide closed form equations of a deterministic univerrse but describe the universe in terms of stochastic processes. There is an error in any theory of physics which can not be explained. This is especially true in astrophysics or metereology. Bear also in mind that in both fields there is not way to experimentally test the theories. That is our expectations are conditional
That says nothing about the sciences though but more about the object that the science is dealing with. Too many natural sciences take a limited scope of knowledge from their area, transmute that into THE scientific method and then blinding try to impose this as the absolute standard on everything no matter the object or study or what techniques would be most appropriate for gaining a knowledge of the processes at work.
That’s assuming that the way society is structured is the same as the areas of study for natural science. If he knew anything about social science he’d have knowledge of the problem of quantification and that social science can’t develop solely via quantitative analysis – there is also need for interpretive and hermeneutic techniques. The point is not THE scientific method but a plurality of methods appropriate for the object of study.
Feynman is spot on. In the natural sciences, scientists are uncompromising in making sure conditions are controlled. There is very little or no control over the conditions in the social sciences.
Absolutely love Mr. F. One of the great lights of science. I don’t know if he knows shit about the social sciences, but I agree with him that without proof skepticism is only prudence.
Now as for controlling bias in social research there are many discussions on this which make it hard to explain in such space limits. For someone like Bourdieu it comes from objectifying (doing sociological analysis) of sociology as a field itself to understand the social influences affecting it. Also science is not an individual endeavour but a collective one – others within the field can point out bias via critique or from different empirical findings.
Are you referring to what Feynman said in the video? To me he wasn’t saying anything about bias but about finding “laws”. What he fails to understand is the complexity of social phenomena that only exists in open systems alongside that social structures are not as enduring as physics so the notion of “laws” is nonsensical to the area of study. Even within science many question if “law” is the right term and if tendency would be more appropriate.
I disagree, they can and do when correctly employed, for example I know of several war veterans whose mental health has been significantly improved through psychotherapy. There are also correctional facilities who have significantly decreased recidivism rates- through employing psycho/sociological understanding and treatment, victims of abuse have been able to break cycles of abuse and dysfunction through therapy.
The natural sciences with their staggering achievements and successes still remain impotent in solving problems of human social existence-although we can visit Mars, here on Earth- poverty, war, crime, violence, social unrest, mental illness, disease and economic instability, still persist . Social sciences are our only courses of study which deal with these issues.
There are obvious limitations to the sort of research social scientists are able to do as a result of basic ethics and scope. The human being and human groups are not available to be manipulated at the whim of researchers in the way natural scientists are able to manipulate matter. regardless of what you call them obviously the fields of psychology, sociology, economics, history, political science and anthropology are all very important at least until they replace us all with robots.
bullshit positivism
As a social scientist myself, I have to take the stance of sociologist Weber when understanding the study of society as a science. We should TRY to be objective in our research with the ultimate realisation that factual objectivity in social science is not truely attainable. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to be scientific about our research. It means we should analyse subjectively for added validity to help our understanding of society as a reality. A worthy cause for a better understanding.
@GiantDanish
There are plenty of areas within natural and life sciences that are the same but they are still considered sciences. The complexity of the object of study and the impossibility of creating ‘closed’ systems does not negate the development of a science but does impose limits upon what it can do. I’d emphasise such limits to be temporal though and think there is scope for massive gains to be made in the future.
@GiantDanish depends which social science. even in psych you have falsifiable, testable predictions. something like sociology is pretty well bs. and with psych, it mostly depends on chem/bio, the study of which into the mind is very young.
feynman doesn’t really have a good argument here. the irony in his words is at his expense
Its funny how so many people who deny the validity of Psychology and call it ‘pseudo science’ continue to uphold the validity and importance of the IQ test which was developed by these same ‘pseudo scientists’.
@conectado2 What about biology? It is a natural science, with convincing experimental data to support its theories. Just because biology is not laden with formulas, it doesn’t invalidate it as a science. Biological system can be explained through chemistry and ultimately physics. The social sciences are nowhere near as scientifically rigorous as biology.
@sreba68 And hence, the social sciences are not sciences. They are not really falsifiable, they dont make testable predictions. They make rough models. It shouldn’t be called science if it isn’t.
Mr Feynman, I think you are correct
@ScientificScience
What conditions are controlled in astrophysics?
@cancunhunt
That is not really true. Modern theories of science do not provide closed form equations of a deterministic univerrse but describe the universe in terms of stochastic processes. There is an error in any theory of physics which can not be explained. This is especially true in astrophysics or metereology. Bear also in mind that in both fields there is not way to experimentally test the theories. That is our expectations are conditional
@cancunhunt
That says nothing about the sciences though but more about the object that the science is dealing with. Too many natural sciences take a limited scope of knowledge from their area, transmute that into THE scientific method and then blinding try to impose this as the absolute standard on everything no matter the object or study or what techniques would be most appropriate for gaining a knowledge of the processes at work.
@cancunhunt
That’s assuming that the way society is structured is the same as the areas of study for natural science. If he knew anything about social science he’d have knowledge of the problem of quantification and that social science can’t develop solely via quantitative analysis – there is also need for interpretive and hermeneutic techniques. The point is not THE scientific method but a plurality of methods appropriate for the object of study.
@cancunhunt And then comes biology. Also your force formula is only valid when mass doesn’t variy X:
@Dayoldsushy
zzzzzzzzzz
@sreba68 lol at sociology
Feynman is spot on. In the natural sciences, scientists are uncompromising in making sure conditions are controlled. There is very little or no control over the conditions in the social sciences.
Absolutely love Mr. F. One of the great lights of science. I don’t know if he knows shit about the social sciences, but I agree with him that without proof skepticism is only prudence.
@lovestospooge314
Now as for controlling bias in social research there are many discussions on this which make it hard to explain in such space limits. For someone like Bourdieu it comes from objectifying (doing sociological analysis) of sociology as a field itself to understand the social influences affecting it. Also science is not an individual endeavour but a collective one – others within the field can point out bias via critique or from different empirical findings.
@lovestospooge314
Are you referring to what Feynman said in the video? To me he wasn’t saying anything about bias but about finding “laws”. What he fails to understand is the complexity of social phenomena that only exists in open systems alongside that social structures are not as enduring as physics so the notion of “laws” is nonsensical to the area of study. Even within science many question if “law” is the right term and if tendency would be more appropriate.
Ever the humble scientist.
I disagree, they can and do when correctly employed, for example I know of several war veterans whose mental health has been significantly improved through psychotherapy. There are also correctional facilities who have significantly decreased recidivism rates- through employing psycho/sociological understanding and treatment, victims of abuse have been able to break cycles of abuse and dysfunction through therapy.
@JimBowie1133 But they don’t deal with the issues at all.
The natural sciences with their staggering achievements and successes still remain impotent in solving problems of human social existence-although we can visit Mars, here on Earth- poverty, war, crime, violence, social unrest, mental illness, disease and economic instability, still persist . Social sciences are our only courses of study which deal with these issues.
There are obvious limitations to the sort of research social scientists are able to do as a result of basic ethics and scope. The human being and human groups are not available to be manipulated at the whim of researchers in the way natural scientists are able to manipulate matter. regardless of what you call them obviously the fields of psychology, sociology, economics, history, political science and anthropology are all very important at least until they replace us all with robots.