> Isn't that a bad thing? I mean, doesn't holding a "wide variety of views"
> mean that at most one of them is right, all the others are wrong, and that
> they don't have enough evidence to constrain the space of their theories?
> This isn't actually my argument in this instance, but it deserves pointing
There is not much hard evidence in social sciences, so, yes, the evidence
does not constrain the theory space nearly as much as in most physical
> In any case, my statement holds true, not because of conformity among
> academics in the soft sciences, but because the central,
> taught-in-textbooks dogma of those academic fields is flagrantly wrong.
I actually don't know what dogma you're referring to. What is the central
dogma of all social sciences? I have studied them extensively and I somehow
don't know.... What standard textbooks are you referring to, in particular?
> > In fact this statement of your strikes me as a flagrantly wrong attitude
> > that is directly attributable to corruption by political influences ;>
> Perhaps. I'm not sure you're entirely free from SSSM contamination
> yourself, which may account for some of it.
The data in social sciences is sufficiently scanty that there is a lot of
room for multiple interpretations, and hence lots of room for personal or
political bias to affect one's choice of interpretation
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:03 MDT