4 ms·

I know nothing about Social Science, so maybe someone can chime in. Whenever I read about something from the social sciences, it always seems to read as an opin

I know nothing about Social Science, so maybe someone can chime in. Whenever I read about something from the social sciences, it always seems to read as an opinion rather than something rigorously tested. Is Social Science considered a rigorous science, or will we look back in 100 years and group it in as we do with phrenology?

JadeNB 5y ago
> Is Social Science considered a rigorous science, or will we look back in 100 years and group it in as we do with phrenology? I think there's a middle ground between being a rigorous science and being an anti-science like phrenology. I think there's no problem with having soft sciences, as long as the difference between them and hard sciences is understood, and one does not confuse the levels of rigor and certainty between the two.
- noptd 5y ago
  Agreed. Unfortunately, a concerning percentage of the population seems driven to treat it as the former when defining their core beliefs, like castles built on sand.
- alfiedotwtf 5y ago
  I think the bluring of lines is what I'm worried about. There's a lot of soft science when it comes to policital economy, and countries have gone all-in with policies from different branches, even though there's really no hard evidence and rigor of some of these ideas. It's mind blowing when you think that millions of people's lives are affected because politicians have had gut instincts of a soft science sounding scientific.
  - SantalBlush 5y ago
    These are fundamental misunderstandings that I often see on HN. First, world leaders must make decisions about the economy, even if those decisions are to, say, permit a more free-market economy. They have no choice in the matter but to decide. The choices they make are based largely on what they consider the best evidence available to them at the time. Second, everyone who participates in the economy has a mental model of how that economy works, using their own evidence. Anyone who says they don't is lying. So if your model of how the economy works is better than the ones they are using, then show us your evidence. Pointing out the flaws in their model is easy and insufficient; you need something better to replace it with, and you must be able to sell it.
    - alfiedotwtf 5y ago
      Sorry, I think you misunderstood me... > The choices they make are based largely on what they consider the best evidence available to them at the time But they're not doing this, and this was my point. A lot of political economy is opinion rather than based of fact, and these non-fact based opinions are what politicians are choosing over hard evidence.
      - SantalBlush 5y ago
        Not sure whether you're suggesting that decision makers don't incorporate mainstream theory into their decisions, or whether mainstream theory is just opinion and not based in evidence. I think either statement would be wrong.
        alfiedotwtf 5y ago
        > mainstream theory is just opinion and not based in evidence An example here would be leaders making Communism a country policy.
watwut 5y ago
This is blog post.
handrous 5y ago
Considerations: 1) First, questioning the premise—you may encounter a whole lot more pop-social-science writing than the Real Deal. Consider, for example, what a smart and thoughtful person, whose main exposure to the work of historians was watching Ancient Aliens, might think of history, as an academic field. I don't know what you've read, but it's possible a lot of it's way toward the entertaining-but-wrong end. 2) As for "rigorous science", the social sciences have many limitations that something like chemistry or physics do not. They are necessarily based much more on observation and comparison of complex real-world systems. Limited ability to perform controlled experiments doesn't make them not science, as there's more to science than just that, but it does mean it can be very difficult to prove solid, definitive results in social science. It does also mean that the edges of social science are a great place to hide and nurture some serious bullshit, and if it's politically convenient for someone maybe even get your bullshit a few well-funded think-tanks—that in addition to how much the heart of it's full of bullshit, too, due to careerist game-playing by researchers, but that's not so different from other fields.
- alfiedotwtf 5y ago
  > I don't know what you've read, but it's possible a lot of it's way toward the entertaining-but-wrong end. Not quite... I've gone through the classics, Wealth of Nations, Das Kapital, General Theory of Employment etc, and about to start Ricardo. What I've found is although they sound logical and use many examples to make their case, I still see most (with some exception to Keynes) of these are just opinion with possibly selective bias of examples. What's bad here, is that these authors each take themselves as gospel, which then politicians have implemented these ideas with a blunt hammer.
  - handrous 5y ago
    Ricardo's going to be a fun one, then. I think you'll find he doesn't make quite so broad a claim re: the benefits of free trade as free-trade advocates tend to imply he does, in his study of comparative advantage. (there's a trend here, since similar things happen with Adam Smith) There is a divide between political philosophy (and adjacent economic work) and social science proper, that's analogous to the divide between the theoretical side of modern physics and the experimental side but cranked up a few notches. As in most other sciences, journals, low-print-count and narrowly-scoped books from academic presses, and (to some degree) textbooks, are where the scientists really work (this doesn't mean it's all good work, of course)—though the standard reading (which you seem to be working through) is standard for a reason, and guide the vocabulary and context of that work. > possibly selective bias of examples. Heh, when you're lucky there are a good number of even biased examples. The really painful ones are mostly "suppose if..." fairy tales spinning fantasies based on some questionable premises and definitions, the odd bad syllogism, and a very small number of cherry picked examples that, if you dig, aren't even presented accurately. Whole schools of political and economic thought can be based almost entirely on this, as their adherents sneer at the illogic and idiocy of those who aren't convinced.

JadeNB 5y ago

> Is Social Science considered a rigorous science, or will we look back in 100 years and group it in as we do with phrenology? I think there's a middle ground between being a rigorous science and being an anti-science like phrenology. I think there's no problem with having soft sciences, as long as the difference between them and hard sciences is understood, and one does not confuse the levels of rigor and certainty between the two.

noptd 5y ago
Agreed. Unfortunately, a concerning percentage of the population seems driven to treat it as the former when defining their core beliefs, like castles built on sand.
alfiedotwtf 5y ago
I think the bluring of lines is what I'm worried about. There's a lot of soft science when it comes to policital economy, and countries have gone all-in with policies from different branches, even though there's really no hard evidence and rigor of some of these ideas. It's mind blowing when you think that millions of people's lives are affected because politicians have had gut instincts of a soft science sounding scientific.
- SantalBlush 5y ago
  These are fundamental misunderstandings that I often see on HN. First, world leaders must make decisions about the economy, even if those decisions are to, say, permit a more free-market economy. They have no choice in the matter but to decide. The choices they make are based largely on what they consider the best evidence available to them at the time. Second, everyone who participates in the economy has a mental model of how that economy works, using their own evidence. Anyone who says they don't is lying. So if your model of how the economy works is better than the ones they are using, then show us your evidence. Pointing out the flaws in their model is easy and insufficient; you need something better to replace it with, and you must be able to sell it.
  - alfiedotwtf 5y ago
    Sorry, I think you misunderstood me... > The choices they make are based largely on what they consider the best evidence available to them at the time But they're not doing this, and this was my point. A lot of political economy is opinion rather than based of fact, and these non-fact based opinions are what politicians are choosing over hard evidence.
    - SantalBlush 5y ago
      Not sure whether you're suggesting that decision makers don't incorporate mainstream theory into their decisions, or whether mainstream theory is just opinion and not based in evidence. I think either statement would be wrong.
      - alfiedotwtf 5y ago
        > mainstream theory is just opinion and not based in evidence An example here would be leaders making Communism a country policy.

watwut 5y ago

This is blog post.

handrous 5y ago

Considerations: 1) First, questioning the premise—you may encounter a whole lot more pop-social-science writing than the Real Deal. Consider, for example, what a smart and thoughtful person, whose main exposure to the work of historians was watching Ancient Aliens, might think of history, as an academic field. I don't know what you've read, but it's possible a lot of it's way toward the entertaining-but-wrong end. 2) As for "rigorous science", the social sciences have many limitations that something like chemistry or physics do not. They are necessarily based much more on observation and comparison of complex real-world systems. Limited ability to perform controlled experiments doesn't make them not science, as there's more to science than just that, but it does mean it can be very difficult to prove solid, definitive results in social science. It does also mean that the edges of social science are a great place to hide and nurture some serious bullshit, and if it's politically convenient for someone maybe even get your bullshit a few well-funded think-tanks—that in addition to how much the heart of it's full of bullshit, too, due to careerist game-playing by researchers, but that's not so different from other fields.

alfiedotwtf 5y ago
> I don't know what you've read, but it's possible a lot of it's way toward the entertaining-but-wrong end. Not quite... I've gone through the classics, Wealth of Nations, Das Kapital, General Theory of Employment etc, and about to start Ricardo. What I've found is although they sound logical and use many examples to make their case, I still see most (with some exception to Keynes) of these are just opinion with possibly selective bias of examples. What's bad here, is that these authors each take themselves as gospel, which then politicians have implemented these ideas with a blunt hammer.
- handrous 5y ago
  Ricardo's going to be a fun one, then. I think you'll find he doesn't make quite so broad a claim re: the benefits of free trade as free-trade advocates tend to imply he does, in his study of comparative advantage. (there's a trend here, since similar things happen with Adam Smith) There is a divide between political philosophy (and adjacent economic work) and social science proper, that's analogous to the divide between the theoretical side of modern physics and the experimental side but cranked up a few notches. As in most other sciences, journals, low-print-count and narrowly-scoped books from academic presses, and (to some degree) textbooks, are where the scientists really work (this doesn't mean it's all good work, of course)—though the standard reading (which you seem to be working through) is standard for a reason, and guide the vocabulary and context of that work. > possibly selective bias of examples. Heh, when you're lucky there are a good number of even biased examples. The really painful ones are mostly "suppose if..." fairy tales spinning fantasies based on some questionable premises and definitions, the odd bad syllogism, and a very small number of cherry picked examples that, if you dig, aren't even presented accurately. Whole schools of political and economic thought can be based almost entirely on this, as their adherents sneer at the illogic and idiocy of those who aren't convinced.