Since I do investigative work in the world of social science, I concur that social science studies are inherently tricky business, but that doesn't mean that there are no generally accepted social science principles. It is possible (using scientific method terminology) to
* Ask a Question * Do Background Research * Construct a Hypothesis * Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment * Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion * Communicate Your Results It isn't possible to draw a conclusion to the degree of certainty that, for example, physicists can conclude that there is a well-defined speed of light. Because I work with the courts a lot, I can say that social science methods are commonly used to present evidence to the court so that the court can make a ruling, based on the preponderance of the evidence. Of course, a court decision is not anything close to a scientific law. The variables that are involved in making us who we are as individuals are almost impossible to isolate. Then when we look at group interactions, the variables get even more complex. It is a tricky endeavor to try to sort it out in a scientific manner. Chris -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dr. Ernest Prabhakar Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 3:55 PM To: Centroids Discussions Subject: Re: [RC] Are There 'Laws' in Social Science? Hi Billy, On Jan 18, 2014, at 11:41 AM, <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] wrote: > The reason why social science and its purveyors often gets such a bad rap has less to do with the rigor of their methods and more to do with the perplexity of their subject matter. Humanity and its cultural constructs are more enigmatic than much of the natural world. Even Feynman recognized this. "Social problems are very much harder than scientific ones," he noted. Social science itself may be an enterprise doomed, not necessarily to fail, just to never fully succeed. Utilizing science to study something inherently unscientific is a tricky business. I am sympathetic to both sides of the argument. Let's face it, a lot of so-called 'hard science' is non-reproducible, so it is foolish to give them too much credit. My bigger critique of the social sciences is that too much of it is non-paradigmatic. There is no clear way to: a) resolve arguments b) Identify areas of exploration that would disprove the dominant paradigm Yes, a lot of that is due to the complexity of the subject matter. And much of the rest is the same institutional problems that lead to inaccuracy in the "hard" sciences. But there is also a contribution from cultural factors (like political correctness), which in theory could be removed. Well, at least if we had a solid enough social science theory to guide us. - Ernie P. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community < <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]> Google Group: <http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism> http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: <http://RadicalCentrism.org> http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]. For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
