5 ms·
There is a deeper problem with research in Social sciences. It lacks theoretical underpinning. Studies and experiments are frequently based on 'pragmatic', ad-h
by ExpiredLink 12y ago
There is a deeper problem with research in Social sciences. It lacks theoretical underpinning. Studies and experiments are frequently based on 'pragmatic', ad-hock assumptions that are easy to confirm but irrelevant.
- stewbrew 12y agoI'd say this is a biased view. In German speaking countries, social sciences rather suffers from theory flim-flam. Maybe in the US, you didn't have your Luhmann-moment yet.
- 1337biz 12y agoCan you elaborate on that?
- lutusp 12y agoThe prior poster lamented the absence of validated theory in the social sciences. Your point is that many of the theories that do exist have no validity. I think those views dovetail.
- ExpiredLink 12y agoExactly.
- stewbrew 12y agoBased on your original comment I had the impression our views rather diverge but maybe I got you wrong. Anyway, HN isn't really the place to discuss such matters.
- iamwithnail 12y agoI'd agree with Stewbrew. SocSci is PACKED with people trying to jam new theory into already crammed areas, because it's the only way they'll get on; although I agree that the studies and experiments are based on sometimes fleeting assumptions or hypotheses, it isn't because of a lack of theory.
- ExpiredLink 12y ago> people trying to jam new theory into already crammed areas Those 'theories' are very limited in scope, ad-hock theories. Not theories in the meaning of "abstract or generalizing thinking" (Wikipedia).