3 ms·

I think most people (including GP) would agree that sociology and psychology have not lived up to the standards of positivism, hence the replication crisis. But

I think most people (including GP) would agree that sociology and psychology have not lived up to the standards of positivism, hence the replication crisis. But if you think those fields are dubious sciences as GP suggests, it seems strange to suggest fixing those fundamental methodological issues by doubling down on an already-dominant paradigm that contributed to them.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Ah, I see. That makes the post much more understandable. Thank you. But from my (admittedly very outside) perspective, sociology and psychology don't look anything like positivism. They look like... I don't know what to call what they look like, but positivism ain't it. Maybe actual positivism could help them. On the other hand, if they think that's what they've been doing for the last century, then telling them to do it isn't going to get them to real positivism... Note well: I think positivism is a philosophy that failed because it was mistaken. I am not a supporter or a fan. But I think that sociology has really failed to come anywhere near what positivism would call for.
- AlotOfReading 4y ago
  I agree that they never really achieved the sort of replicability reached in other sciences. In perfect honesty, positivism is a bit old-fashioned in sociology (as I understand it secondhand). Like Archaeology/Anthropology (my field), most of the social sciences moved beyond positivism beginning in the 80s because of its many flaws and you'll find few strict adherents today. What replaced it was usually methodological pluralism in North America, but other places sometimes developed differently. But I try to know my audience a bit and sometimes simplify certain things on HN to avoid arguments and conversational detours. Discussing things like postmodernism tends to get sidetracked and that's inherently necessary context, so... Modern sociology is fairly quantitative and data-driven though. I think a lot of people would be surprised.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

Ah, I see. That makes the post much more understandable. Thank you. But from my (admittedly very outside) perspective, sociology and psychology don't look anything like positivism. They look like... I don't know what to call what they look like, but positivism ain't it. Maybe actual positivism could help them. On the other hand, if they think that's what they've been doing for the last century, then telling them to do it isn't going to get them to real positivism... Note well: I think positivism is a philosophy that failed because it was mistaken. I am not a supporter or a fan. But I think that sociology has really failed to come anywhere near what positivism would call for.

AlotOfReading 4y ago
I agree that they never really achieved the sort of replicability reached in other sciences. In perfect honesty, positivism is a bit old-fashioned in sociology (as I understand it secondhand). Like Archaeology/Anthropology (my field), most of the social sciences moved beyond positivism beginning in the 80s because of its many flaws and you'll find few strict adherents today. What replaced it was usually methodological pluralism in North America, but other places sometimes developed differently. But I try to know my audience a bit and sometimes simplify certain things on HN to avoid arguments and conversational detours. Discussing things like postmodernism tends to get sidetracked and that's inherently necessary context, so... Modern sociology is fairly quantitative and data-driven though. I think a lot of people would be surprised.