3 ms·
The goalposts of social science always seems to be moved to where the ball goes. But, I think if we're being honest, than yes. Not the only goal obviously. But
by netcan 6y ago
The goalposts of social science always seems to be moved to where the ball goes. But, I think if we're being honest, than yes.
Not the only goal obviously. But, there are countless economists & policy researchers publishing on similar topics all the time.
- watwut 6y agoTo me, it seems that actual scientific articles that would fall into social science umbrella have much smaller scope and goals.
- netcan 6y agoI'm not sure what you mean by "actual scientific articles," but I mean stuff that's generally published in economics, policy, psychology or other "social science" related journals. I'm not commenting on which is "scientific" in a Popperian sense. I'm not sure any of these publications clear that bar. Questions of scope and/or magnitude is one of the moving goalposts. Scope is implied to be very broad in most contexts, limited in more critical contexts. This theory only applies to preschools in this neighborhood. The 2018 Nobel Laureate for Economics was about "Endogenous growth theory," a theory of how human capital, innovation, and knowledge contribute to economic growth. Is that a small scope? The most influential social science book of the last few years was "Capital in the 21st century" which is a theory of income and wealth gaps. Is that small in scope? Ultimately, a theory that can't be generalized iss not really a theory, in a scientific sense. It's punditry.