4 ms·

> He's not a social scientist, and I don't think he'd appreciate an anthropologist evaluating the state of affairs in quantum computing research. But, from thi

by privong 11y ago

> He's not a social scientist, and I don't think he'd appreciate an anthropologist evaluating the state of affairs in quantum computing research. But, from things I have read elsewhere, there does seem to be a reasonably convincing body of evidence that there are systematic biases in social sciences. Some of this perhaps stems from discrimination (e.g., in hiring practices) based on political allegiance. Jonathan Haidt (a social scientist) has spoken out on this topic[0], including specifically on sociology[1]. While that issue likely affects academics in general, political leaning likely has a much smaller influence on one's research in physics and chemistry, compared to one's research in sociology. It's true that Aaronson is not a social scientist, but I don't think that means he is wrong. [0] http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/postpartisan.html http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/postpartisan.html [1] http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2016/02/a-conversation-with-jonathan-haidt/ http://www.mindingthecampus.org/2016/02/a-conversation-with-...

pron 11y ago
> there does seem to be a reasonably convincing body of evidence that there is systematic biases in social sciences. But Aaronson makes a far more specific assertion than "there is evidence for systematic bias in social sciences". I agree that there is political bias in social science departments. It is painfully clear to anyone who ever sets foot in one, especially as an outsider (much like the sexism in SV). I think that overall it harms research, perhaps significantly, and it must be addressed. But outsiders sometimes view this (rather obvious) criticism as a complete refutation of the field(s), which it is most certainly not. To their credit, social researchers actively study this bias without need for external pressure, and even acknowledge it's a problem, something which cannot be said for other disciplines (one could argue that it is social researchers' job to study precisely such things, but at least you can see that they're not intellectually dishonest enough to avoid the issue or to dismiss it as inconsequential). BTW, in general, I think that outsiders usually tend to overestimate internal criticisms (in any discipline). When (internal) critics say "our estimate of the variable x to be 10 is far too low!" they really mean "x is more likely to be 12", while outsiders interpret it as "x is probably 1000". > political leaning likely has a much smaller influence on one's research in physics and chemistry, compared to one's research in sociology True, but the correlation between political leaning and social research may very well be a reverse causal relationship: that one's research in sociology is far more likely to affect one's politics than research in physics. If there is an over-representation of a particular ideology in the social sciences (although it's hard for me to put all the social sciences in one category, because they are quite different from one another -- more different than, say, physics and chemistry), it may serve as evidence that some common and politically pertinent ideas arise from the research itself[1] as much as evidence of anything else. BTW, I've read the interview with Haidt that you linked to -- thank you for that -- it is truly horrifying. But I get the sense that this is a rather American phenomenon. I certainly didn't experience anything close to it in magnitude at my university. [1]: And I don't mean necessarily from the results, but possibly from the process.
dilemma 11y ago
There are systematic biases in the social sciences, and there are systematic biases in physics. Read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. As they are social systems, they will always be biased. And the most dangerous bias is the one that claims itself unbiased, fully objective.
- privong 11y ago
  > There are systematic biases in the social sciences, and there are systematic biases in physics. Read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. As they are social systems, they will always be biased. And the most dangerous bias is the one that claims itself unbiased, fully objective. I never claimed physics was bias-free. I just said that political affiliation likely imparts less bias on physics than it does on sociology. And that was just one example of a possible source of bias.
  - typon 11y ago
    But that's pretty much what Aaronson is implying. That physics can be cold, calculating, unbiased while the social sciences are the opposite. There is plenty of dogma in the physics world as well. For example, just look at the way people defend their favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics as absolute truth.
    - privong 11y ago
      > But that's pretty much what Aaronson is implying. That physics can be cold, calculating, unbiased while the social sciences are the opposite. Sure, and I agree that it's not necessarily true. I just wanted to point out that I was never claiming physics to be unbiased. :)
    - Xcelerate 11y ago
      > just look at the way people defend their favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics as absolute truth. Yeah, but these people are rarely actual physicists. A physicist might discuss "interpretations of quantum mechanics" over lunch with a colleague in a fun, speculative way, but it makes little difference on the research they perform. More importantly, it doesn't affect the predictions that their research makes. This is not the case with the social sciences.

by privong 11y ago

pron 11y ago

> there does seem to be a reasonably convincing body of evidence that there is systematic biases in social sciences. But Aaronson makes a far more specific assertion than "there is evidence for systematic bias in social sciences". I agree that there is political bias in social science departments. It is painfully clear to anyone who ever sets foot in one, especially as an outsider (much like the sexism in SV). I think that overall it harms research, perhaps significantly, and it must be addressed. But outsiders sometimes view this (rather obvious) criticism as a complete refutation of the field(s), which it is most certainly not. To their credit, social researchers actively study this bias without need for external pressure, and even acknowledge it's a problem, something which cannot be said for other disciplines (one could argue that it is social researchers' job to study precisely such things, but at least you can see that they're not intellectually dishonest enough to avoid the issue or to dismiss it as inconsequential). BTW, in general, I think that outsiders usually tend to overestimate internal criticisms (in any discipline). When (internal) critics say "our estimate of the variable x to be 10 is far too low!" they really mean "x is more likely to be 12", while outsiders interpret it as "x is probably 1000". > political leaning likely has a much smaller influence on one's research in physics and chemistry, compared to one's research in sociology True, but the correlation between political leaning and social research may very well be a reverse causal relationship: that one's research in sociology is far more likely to affect one's politics than research in physics. If there is an over-representation of a particular ideology in the social sciences (although it's hard for me to put all the social sciences in one category, because they are quite different from one another -- more different than, say, physics and chemistry), it may serve as evidence that some common and politically pertinent ideas arise from the research itself[1] as much as evidence of anything else. BTW, I've read the interview with Haidt that you linked to -- thank you for that -- it is truly horrifying. But I get the sense that this is a rather American phenomenon. I certainly didn't experience anything close to it in magnitude at my university. [1]: And I don't mean necessarily from the results, but possibly from the process.

dilemma 11y ago

There are systematic biases in the social sciences, and there are systematic biases in physics. Read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. As they are social systems, they will always be biased. And the most dangerous bias is the one that claims itself unbiased, fully objective.

privong 11y ago
> There are systematic biases in the social sciences, and there are systematic biases in physics. Read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics. As they are social systems, they will always be biased. And the most dangerous bias is the one that claims itself unbiased, fully objective. I never claimed physics was bias-free. I just said that political affiliation likely imparts less bias on physics than it does on sociology. And that was just one example of a possible source of bias.
- typon 11y ago
  But that's pretty much what Aaronson is implying. That physics can be cold, calculating, unbiased while the social sciences are the opposite. There is plenty of dogma in the physics world as well. For example, just look at the way people defend their favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics as absolute truth.
  - privong 11y ago
    > But that's pretty much what Aaronson is implying. That physics can be cold, calculating, unbiased while the social sciences are the opposite. Sure, and I agree that it's not necessarily true. I just wanted to point out that I was never claiming physics to be unbiased. :)
  - Xcelerate 11y ago
    > just look at the way people defend their favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics as absolute truth. Yeah, but these people are rarely actual physicists. A physicist might discuss "interpretations of quantum mechanics" over lunch with a colleague in a fun, speculative way, but it makes little difference on the research they perform. More importantly, it doesn't affect the predictions that their research makes. This is not the case with the social sciences.