> The following piece discusses the differences between the Standard Social > Science Model (SSSM) evolutionary model (EM): > > HUMAN NATURE AND PUBLIC POLICY: An Evolutionary Approach, ed. Albert Somit > and Steven Peterson, [ pp. 3-18 ] > http://jayhanson.us/_Biology/SSSM_vs_EM.pdf
I don't know how generally accepted (and how "standard") the so-called "Standard Social Science Model" (SSSM) is among social scientists. I do know that in general, economists reject it, instead rejecting the role of culture and taking "tastes" as totally unexplained. The SSSM story is what I'd call "structuralist," in which individual tastes, perspectives, etc. depend entirely on the social structure they find themselves in. I have a hard time believing that a significant sector of social scientists believes that (so that those pursuing the "evolutionary model" are exaggerating their own contribution): most would probably believe in the roles of nature _and_ nurture, though it's only nurture that policy-makers have significant impact on. Most sociologists I've encountered lately simply ignore the issue and are simply empiricist. -- Jim Devine "All science would be superfluous if the form of appearance of things directly coincided with their essence." -- KM _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
