3 ms·
You 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 m
by hadsed 7y ago
You 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.