3 ms·

Like you say, I think we've reached an end point on most of this. FWIW, I think we're using the term "theory" in exactly the same way, given that we've discuss

by netcan 6y ago

Like you say, I think we've reached an end point on most of this. FWIW, I think we're using the term "theory" in exactly the same way, given that we've discussed half a dozen examples. I'll just respond to the last point. Human minds and societies are complex. The job is hard. So, what to do? The modern conception of the scientific method (eg a scientific theory must be falsifiable) was laid out most famously by Karl Popper. His work was adopted as a framework by hard sciences. But, it was intended as a criticism of social sciences of his day... notably marxist & freudian fields. The methods of reasoning in these fields. Social science was, I believe, deeply affected by Popper's work. But, I think the direction was entirely wrong. The conclusion should been to abandon scientific pretext when it is not possible. If what you are doing is philosophy, punditry or what Popper called "justificationism," treat it as a nonscientific avenue. Non scientific fields are valid. Non scientific theories presented as scientific are not. They're pseudoscience. The replication crisis in psychology should have been a wake up call. I fear that the loss of position social sciences are experiencing (as you say, they've lost a lot of pull in policy formation) will make things worse, not better. The way social sciences influence the world these days is mostly undergraduate education. That's a lot of influence still, but it's also a refuge from criticism. The only remaining threat to a social science theory is prevailing biases within its own field, because it's unlikely to leave the classroom. Look, leaving economics aside... what are some tangible achievements of social sciences in recent generations? What has behavioural economics or psychology taught us, that we use to some benefit?

naravara 6y ago
> The conclusion should been to abandon scientific pretext when it is not possible. It’s not “not possible.” It’s only applicable under constrained context. Again I point back to certain styles of education leaving people underequipped to cope with ambiguity. That doesn’t mean the methods aren’t useful for understanding systems or processes. > Non scientific theories presented as scientific are not. This is just descending into self-referential semantic hair splitting. You’ve decided on a definition of “science” and you’ve decided that this definition is what social scientists must be trying to hew to based on no direct experience of your own on what social scientists actually do. It sounds like you’re conflating “wonkbloggers,” like 538 or Vox, with what actual social scientists do. (And these bloggers shoddy methods are something social scientists have been complaining about for years). But this is like taking Michio Kaku’s pop-sci writing as representative of how physics works. It’s also not clear why it’s a hill to die on whether something is “scientific.” It’s not social scientists who worry about this, most of them are comfortable with ambiguity and understand what contexts conclusions can be drawn and when they can’t. Nobody actually cares what’s scientific or not except people who are deeply invested in the primacy of positivist scientism as a source of truth. But that fixation is almost exclusively from non-social scientists. There is reason to doubt your sincerity when saying that non-scientific methods are valid, considering that you have, in the same breath, referred to these methods of analysis with pejorative terms like “punditry” or “just so stories.” > The replication crisis in psychology should have been a wake up call. The “replication crisis” isn’t even that germane in most social sciences. It’s more of a thing in clinical trials so I don’t know why you would expect it to be a wake up call to sociologists or political scientists. > Look, leaving economics aside... what are some tangible achievements of social sciences in recent generations? What has behavioural economics or psychology taught us, that we use to some benefit? All of public policy and policy analysis is predicated on various social science frameworks. This is a bizarre question. Where do you think explanations of things like the effects of women’s education of fertility or the most efficacious criminal justice approaches come from? The idea that the primary area of influence is in teaching undergraduates is downright bizarre. Who do you think staffs the State Department or sits on advisory committees at think tanks?

by netcan 6y ago

naravara 6y ago

> The conclusion should been to abandon scientific pretext when it is not possible. It’s not “not possible.” It’s only applicable under constrained context. Again I point back to certain styles of education leaving people underequipped to cope with ambiguity. That doesn’t mean the methods aren’t useful for understanding systems or processes. > Non scientific theories presented as scientific are not. This is just descending into self-referential semantic hair splitting. You’ve decided on a definition of “science” and you’ve decided that this definition is what social scientists must be trying to hew to based on no direct experience of your own on what social scientists actually do. It sounds like you’re conflating “wonkbloggers,” like 538 or Vox, with what actual social scientists do. (And these bloggers shoddy methods are something social scientists have been complaining about for years). But this is like taking Michio Kaku’s pop-sci writing as representative of how physics works. It’s also not clear why it’s a hill to die on whether something is “scientific.” It’s not social scientists who worry about this, most of them are comfortable with ambiguity and understand what contexts conclusions can be drawn and when they can’t. Nobody actually cares what’s scientific or not except people who are deeply invested in the primacy of positivist scientism as a source of truth. But that fixation is almost exclusively from non-social scientists. There is reason to doubt your sincerity when saying that non-scientific methods are valid, considering that you have, in the same breath, referred to these methods of analysis with pejorative terms like “punditry” or “just so stories.” > The replication crisis in psychology should have been a wake up call. The “replication crisis” isn’t even that germane in most social sciences. It’s more of a thing in clinical trials so I don’t know why you would expect it to be a wake up call to sociologists or political scientists. > Look, leaving economics aside... what are some tangible achievements of social sciences in recent generations? What has behavioural economics or psychology taught us, that we use to some benefit? All of public policy and policy analysis is predicated on various social science frameworks. This is a bizarre question. Where do you think explanations of things like the effects of women’s education of fertility or the most efficacious criminal justice approaches come from? The idea that the primary area of influence is in teaching undergraduates is downright bizarre. Who do you think staffs the State Department or sits on advisory committees at think tanks?