From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Jun 14 2003 - 11:57:18 MDT
Robin Hanson writes (hi Robin! great to see you posting here!)
> Ron writes
>
> > We seem to get so oriented toward the hard sciences that we forget
> > there is a whole world of philosophy, political science, theology and
> > goodness knows what else out in the real world that is derived and
> > discussed in a rational and reason based way. Science can lay claim
> > to much, but... being the only reason-based field is not a claim
> > science can sustain.
> >
> > We fall for every con artist that comes along with three shells and a
> > pea once we get outside the field of hard science. We truly need a
> > broader education for our scientists -- a scientist has to fill many
> > roles besides scientist.
>
> Let me suggest the main problem is that people don't realize that there really
> are such things as social sciences, which can be just as "scientific" as other
> "sciences", but are far less deferred to.
But we've been led astray so many times, especially during
social sciences' birth in the last century. Recall all
the theories of Skinner and Watson, for starters. And Mead
was swallowed whole for generations. Yes, I suppose that
a "maturing" has occurred, and that what I am saying could
have been aimed (once long ago) at Galileo and Kepler.
So what about the old adage the social sciences truly are
more difficult? Also the observation that it is vastly
harder to uproot someone's beliefs about human nature (e.g.
The Blank Slate), than it is to disprove the claims about
N-rays or cold fusion?
> The public can read that a physicist says some weird thing
> or another and the usual reaction is "how fascinating, I
> didn't know that", even if they have little idea what it means,
> but if a social scientist says some well established thing
> that goes against popular wishes, such as that a minimum wage
> raises unemployment, the reaction will be a quick dismissal.
Of course, you understand the reasons for that---the "fascinating"
little science fact does not conflict with an entire world-view,
and can be easily absorbed. But beliefs about many social issues
appear to stand and fall together.
> Alas, one of the myths of democracy is that there should be no social
> experts, so that every thought that occurs to anyone on social issues
> is as valid as anything any "expert" says. It's just not so.
Quite right. But I for one occasionally still find social science
experiments not persuasive, for one reason or another, (forget
behaviorism or leftist anthropology). Do you believe the Zimbardo
effect? It has to remain the last word, because no one can ethically
ever again repeat the experiment. I suspect---but can never know---
that the experimenter allowed his personal participation and priming
of his subjects to interfere with the conclusions.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 14 2003 - 12:07:14 MDT