5 ms·
What makes you say that this kind of study can never ascend to the level of science? This kind of study is science. It's imperfect, but all of science is; scien
by lambda 12y ago
What makes you say that this kind of study can never ascend to the level of science? This kind of study is science. It's imperfect, but all of science is; science is just a collection of tools to improve our knowledge of the world, coupled with the body of knowledge so gained. Some of those tools are stronger than others, or can provide more certainty.
Controlled studies in which you vary only one input to a system at a time, and observe the effect, are obviously a stronger tool than mere observational studies. But that doesn't make observational studies not science.
It's perfectly possible to determine which of these effects are more or less likely to be responsible; the different hypotheses that you make would make easily testable predictions, which can be tested independently because different jurisdictions have made these changes at different times. Lead was banned in different countries at vastly different times (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead). Likewise, three-strikes laws have been introduced at different times in different places, and many places have never introduced such laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-strikes_law). Easy availability of birth control and abortion may be a little harder to quantify precisely, but that can be done too.
Since some countries have only banned leaded fuel in the past 10 years, within another 10 or 15 we should be able to say with considerably more certainty whether this has a causal relationship. If the crime data for countries which banned it later follow the same pattern, that's a very strong indication that the theory is correct.
I would find it hard to believe that the three strikes laws would have the same effect, as the reduction in crime has been happening fairly consistently nation-wide, while three strikes laws have been implemented at vastly different times in different states, or not at all. Lead levels are much more consistent nationwide, as those have mostly been national laws (with the exception of California banning leaded gasoline a few years earlier).
Anyhow, I strongly disagree that you can say that this isn't science. It's imperfect science; anything as complex as the social phenomenon of global crime levels is going to have a lot of complex, interacting factors and no one of them is going to be completely explanatory, and you are never going to be able to do significant studies with controlled inputs. But there are scientific tools for dealing with these somewhat more ambiguous situations, and we can and should apply them as the policy implications are quite substantial.
- lutusp 12y ago> What makes you say that this kind of study can never ascend to the level of science? Because the uncontrolled nature of the observations means evidence cannot be reliably collected in a way that separates one cause from any number of unintended causes and side effects. The only way to get around these obstacles would be to feed one group of people doses of lead and compare them to another in a controlled setting, or isolate two groups of people, give one group the right to birth control and abortions, deny the other group those rights, and keep them from finding out about each other. Things that cannot be done for ethical reasons, and things that prevent social psychology from rising to the level of science. This is why social psychology cannot be a science, and it explains why the field has the terrible reputation it has and deserves. Link: http://chronicle.com/article/As-Dutch-Research-Scandal/129746/ http://chronicle.com/article/As-Dutch-Research-Scandal/12974... Quote: "Even before the Stapel case broke, a flurry of articles had begun appearing this fall that pointed to supposed systemic flaws in the way psychologists handle data. But one methodological expert, Eric-Jan Wagenmakers, of the University of Amsterdam, added a sociological twist to the statistical debate: Psychology, he argued in a recent blog post and an interview, has become addicted to surprising, counterintuitive findings that catch the news media's eye, and that trend is warping the field." > Anyhow, I strongly disagree that you can say that this isn't science. Yes, I understand, but you haven't the slightest idea what makes science science. If you did, you would recognize this sort of article for what it is. Social psychology deserves its reputation, science operates at a higher level, this is Science 101, and you have no idea what you're talking about. Not a clue. There is a one-word summary of what science requires, that word is known to every qualified scientist, and you do not know what it is. How do I know this? You defended social psychology for over four hundred words without even mentioning it.
- DanBC 12y agoI welcome your strong defence of best quality science. The general public needs to know how the stronger sciences differ from the softer sciences. However, this post is needlessly rude.
- czr80 12y agoYou could I guess define Science as only applying to areas where you can do controlled experiments - but you would thereby eliminate all observational sciences - evolutionary biology, astrophysics, cosmology, etc. I suspect most people would find that a somewhat extreme position. Also, fraud is an issue in all fields of Science, so that seems somewhat an unfair issue to introduce.