3 ms·
Sure, I can give you a good example about linguistics. Noam Chomsky’s theory of a universal grammar [1] in linguistics which is the de facto accepted theory, a
by wtdata 7y ago
Sure, I can give you a good example about linguistics.
Noam Chomsky’s theory of a universal grammar [1] in linguistics which is the de facto accepted theory, although there is data from other researchers like Dan Everett that totally disprove the Chomsky’s theory with at least one concrete example. [2]
That is exactly the issue I am talking about. You have your in vogue theory in that field and everyone in the academia loves it, and when someone brings you concrete evidence of one of more cases where the theory clearly doesn't apply, what do linguistics do? They dismiss all evidence and carry on just using the theory that is popular.
Can you just wonder what would happen in a real field of science if someone brought forward evidence that the de facto theory clearly doesn't apply in one measurement that was made and you couldn't find anything wrong with that observation or measurement? Can you even imagine if someone came forward with a clear case where the velocity of light in vacuum was surpassed by something else? Or if someone was able to measure precisely the momentum and position of a particle? Or if someone found that the environment affects the genes of a living being in order for it to adapt? Or if someone found evidence of fossils much older than we though life in Earth to be?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y agoLike in any other field, initial theories can be flawed and it takes time to find convincing replacements. It's true that it's imperfect, but I think you have a blind spot for the same failings in other sciences.
- buboard 7y agoOne thing though is that a large body of research followed on the same path semi-blindly. Too much trust was placed on Chomsky's (brilliant on publication, but that was 70 years ago!) ideas that the brain might contain machinery for universal grammars. Other fields differ markedly on level of skepticism. That said, linguistics is not a science that is commonly referenced in politics, nor the exemplary "social science". It's arguably closer to hard sciences like mathematics. The science that are trusted when making public policy decisions are usually social/political science, psychology, economics et al.
- Chris2048 7y ago> but I think you have a blind spot Do you have evidence supporting this Ad-Hom, or is it just an imperfect initial theory?
- mc32 7y agoFor me a big pet peeve is in the socsci there seems to be a cottage industry producing things like “a study in Manteca, CA, showed that buying meal kits has smaller carbon footprint than grocery store food”. But if you read you’ll find out they bought a few meal kits and made some big assumptions. But then you get a bunch of influences trying to be hip who push this without being critical. It could be a study on homelessness or addiction, etc.
- hadsed 7y agoYou should read a bit about the revolution of physics in the late 1800s-early 1900s. There was just as much carrying on with theories that are popular despite mounting evidence to the contrary. The tide was so great that Ludwig Boltzmann committed suicide. Of course, eventually the evidence grew until it was impossible to ignore. But let's not forget that even physicists can succumb to what's in vogue. Physics does have a great culture of trying to combat this, though that has its own problems.
- Chris2048 7y agoBut is it fair to compare modern social science to the "hard" science of the 19th century? It is precisely the history of modern science that shaped its stated methodology. I think all sciences should be held to account, but I think the claim here is Social Sciences aren't event trying.
- padobson 7y agoThis is a good point. The trail has already been blazed. Maybe it was blazed in a messy way, but the "younger" sciences just need to follow it now.
- wallace_f 7y agoIt's true that groupthink also afflicts the hard sciences and engineering as well. This caused the foam strike, disintegrating a space shuttle, when NASA engineers knew of the problem, but their ideas were considered. But what the social sciences lack is the scientific method. No testable hypothesis. Not science.