What do you think of the Social Sciences?

[革命者]

What do you think of (current) sociology, modern psychology, etc., and how can it (if at all possible) be improved? Which research methods are most valuable and which are of little value? From what perspective should its objects of study be approached (philosophical, empirical, deductive, inductive)?

[Belisarius]

i'm normally not against social science, but there are two method i don't like: statistical surveys and physical determinism. i know how i fill those suveys out and i think almost everybody lies on these papers. the problem with these answers too is that there always seems to be a correct answer in the list (for example: have you ever donated money to charity: a) yes, a lot, b) yes, sometimes, c) no, never: who will answer c? even if it's the truth?)

the second i mentioned, physical determinism, is that everything is explainable by physics and chemistry. it's pretty popular in psychology now, with all those studies in hormones. reducing mental processes to physical processes is pretty narrow-minded, i think. Maybe it is not hormones that generate emotions, but emotions that generate hormones?

i'm more a fan of the emic-etic technique in antropology. making a balance between the opinions of the studied culture and the opinions of the observer. i think this constitutes a relative reliable account.

[革命者]

Good points, there! And what do you think of the absence of the use of formal logic in the drawing of conclusions? I think most hypotheses in the social sciences can't logically lead to the validation of the hypotheses or theories; not enough care is taken in exploring all possibilities. It kind of jumps around from one object of study to another without doing thorough "scientific" research.

To make matters worse, universities present these shaky conclusions of research as scientific fact. Even the notion of scientific fact being, of course, problematic.

I totally agree about physical/biological determinism. Here too, disregard of logic leads to foregone conclusions, though neurology is very interesting at the moment and is starting to disprove many psychological theories.

[Belisarius]

i agree. soem scientists try to explain stuff that relies on free choice with gibberish on hormones and chemistry. for example: maybe eating chocolate doesn't make you happy BECAUSE it releases hormones in your brain, but because chocolate is tastefull (which makes you happy) and this causes hormone-release.

another tendency in the sciences is doing quite banal analyses. who cares whether lettuce increases sexual potency or not? how much of a loner do you need to be to even come up with such a question?:laugh::confused:

[革命者]

I think such objects of study (sexual potency) are chosen not because of loners, but because it sells; the media will pick it up and mention the research institute or university, which will almost guarantee that they'll fund your research, with decreasing public funding jeopardising real scientific research and consequently damaging the already damaged image of science even further.

[Belisarius]

it's true that much research is done with the funding of capitalist organisations. for me economics classes i'm making a study of the people's trust in the economic situation and i found a news article that said that according to a study people were more optimistic about the economy than last year. when i actually read the article, i found it not that optimistic at all (the number of people who didn't buy christmas gifts was doubled!) and, even worse, it was funded by Citibank. this bank was in the news just some weeks earlier because they lost a lot of their clients' shares. so probably they just needed some publicity stunt or propaganda to get the people interested again in the economy and, fo course, their bank.

[革命者]

But should we rid ourselves of these sciences because they are popular; their studies get publicity? Or how do we make them more scientific and consequently less popular?

There is also the problem of an increasing amount of students taking courses in social science; many of them don't find jobs or jobs are being created for them. I don't see a real need for so many social science graduates; they parasitise the public sector for a large degree (at least in the Third Way welfare states). I am talking about problemising the behaviour of youth and thus publically-funded solving problems that are not there or at least not relieved by them and change-management within organsations providing public services, many times unwarrantedly changing or standardising their structure and practices.

[革命者]

I think for the social sciences to be more scientific, it should go back to a more philosophical and deductive approach; making abstractions and generalisations and constructing more-encompassing, abstract theories. It should work therefore more closely with the Humanities.

[Hit The North]

I think for the social sciences to be more scientific, it should go back to a more philosophical and deductive approach; making abstractions and generalisations and constructing more-encompassing, abstract theories. It should work therefore more closely with the Humanities.

How would retreating into abstraction make social science more scientific?

[革命者]

How would retreating into abstraction make social science more scientific?It's about the perspective; building abstract theories to predict concrete phenomena and then see if the predictions come true, thereby validating the theory, then making new predictions based on the theory to falsify the theory. Ad infinitum, unless the theory is falsified. Then create a new theory, taking account of all observations.

What many in the social sciences now do is drawing conclusions that aren't tested by logic (the observations can lead to more than one conclusion) and presenting them as fact, while they should do further research.

Therefore, they should abstract to a point where much more research is done to falsify or validate the theory, so that they can draw logical conclusions.

[Belisarius]

this is actually straigthbook scientific theory (K.Popper). this counts for all sciences.

[革命者]

this is actually straigthbook scientific theory (K.Popper). this counts for all sciences.But why then is it not being applied?

[Ravachol]

But should we rid ourselves of these sciences because they are popular; their studies get publicity? Or how do we make them more scientific and consequently less popular?


Why should science be 'popular'? Also, what is 'popular'? The concept of the 'popular opinion' is a social construct that seeks to unify thousands of subjectivities into one 'vision' filtered through the lenses of a subjective inquiry and a subjective reporting agency.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

the second i mentioned, physical determinism, is that everything is explainable by physics and chemistry. it's pretty popular in psychology now, with all those studies in hormones. reducing mental processes to physical processes is pretty narrow-minded, i think. Maybe it is not hormones that generate emotions, but emotions that generate hormones?


im currently studying psychology at degree level and have to say that physical determinism bothers me too. Its extremely deflationary to the complex human creature to reduce it to hormones, neurology etc, although these elements obviously play a part in everyones make-up. Ive known peoples personalities do a total 180 degree turn in a matter of months far past the age where hormones would really have an effect. Im absolutely unconvinced that our entire personalities, likes and dislikes etc, are biologically determind.



i'm more a fan of the emic-etic technique in antropology. making a balance between the opinions of the studied culture and the opinions of the observer. i think this constitutes a relative reliable account.


this :thumbup:

[Calmwinds]

Non-materialist psychology and neuroscience is a bunch of mystic garbage. Psychology should at best be reduced to neuroscience as possible. I can understand the reservations about the ethical implications about what it means for how humans act and go about their lives, but please, we preserve the truth first.

http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Non-materialist_neuroscience Briefly covers some views that I agree with.

And yes I anticipate a Wittgensteinian attack on this. Not on the fact that Psychology/Neuroscience is non-materialist, but on the concept that non-human objects can "do" things and influence the body and therefore we are anthropomorphizing something. Yet for some reason I felt that this attack is mostly directed from not liking the ethical implications of genetics and their large influence in the actions of humans, and not first as an attempt to preserve the truth. I apologize beforehand for this abductive(?) reasoning.

Also what in the world is Marxisms almost mystic obsession with subjectivity/relativism.

I also do not agree with the naive falsificationism. I will say that I hold very closely that much of what is said if not all should be falsifiable, but as a theory for the 'movement of science' I do not agree with this at all.

[革命者]

Also what in the world is Marxisms almost mystic obsession with subjectivity/relativism.It obviously didn't use to be that way. It's just a sign of the times, not anything Marxist in particular. It's a logical cul-de-sac, but since logic is too objectivist, damaging conclusions are nevertheless drawn.

But for Marxism it must be the influence of leading postmodern philosophers on the Frankfurt School and similar turns to postmodern thought by Marxist and anarchist thinkers.

[革命者]

And if some research is not able to falsify a theory, that's fine as long as further research is done. If you don't at least try to falsify it, then we can just philosophise. That's fine, but no science. And philosophy without science is not very helpful and leads to mystics.

And I am not falling for a useless debate about a constructed conception of the word popular. I think any old dictionary will suffice to be able to talk about it, for our means.

I am not saying popular science is good, but the contrary.

[which doctor]

But for Marxism it must be the influence of leading postmodern philosophers on the Frankfurt School and similar turns to postmodern thought by Marxist and anarchist thinkers.
The Frankfurt School was not post-modernist, although many of their conclusions anticipated those of the post-modernists, they were distinctly modernist in orientation. Hell, Adorno, in a digression I can forgive him for, even remarked that he wanted to write a specifically Leninist Communist Manifesto.

The Frankfurt School was opposed to Positivism, which is what most bourgeois social sciences now amount to, because Positivism is anti-dialectical and fails to account for the totality of social relations

[Belisarius]

The Frankfurt School was not post-modernist, although many of their conclusions anticipated those of the post-modernists, they were distinctly modernist in orientation. Hell, Adorno, in a digression I can forgive him for, even remarked that he wanted to write a specifically Leninist Communist Manifesto.
Adorno resembled postmodernism since he criticized the enlightened ideals in "the dialectics of enlightenment". but his way of showing an old ideal turned to its opposite was leninist in this sense that lenin had done the same with capitalist economy (free progressive market -> oppressive conservative monopoly)

[革命者]

So by which principles are we to save the social sciences, considering that for us it should be the most important area of scientific endeavour?

What research should it lend itself for and what not?

[Belisarius]

So by which principles are we to save the social sciences, considering that for us it should be the most important area of scientific endeavour?

What research should it lend itself for and what not?
i think the primary motivator should be the use for society. science shouldn't occupy itself with making tests to comprehend or influence the market for some corporations. the first question we should ask ourselves in science is: is this useful for society as a whole? this eliminates corrupt researches, but also stupid researches (like the link between lettuce and lust for example).

[spiltteeth]

critical psychology or liberation psychology actually helps people - dennis fox is doing interesting things in S. africa with critical research.
or check out Martin-Baro who argues that traditional psychology's image of the human person is falsely abstract and fails to consider the real-life social and economic conditions that form people.
he was murdered by soldiers in November 1989 at El Salvador.
Ian Parker and radical psychology takes a materialist marxist position and is quite good as well.
www.radpsynet.org/

[Hit The North]

i think the primary motivator should be the use for society. science shouldn't occupy itself with making tests to comprehend or influence the market for some corporations. the first question we should ask ourselves in science is: is this useful for society as a whole? this eliminates corrupt researches, but also stupid researches (like the link between lettuce and lust for example).

Except this is an inherently non-revolutionary approach as it assumes that there is something such as the 'social good' which applies equally to the bourgeoisie, the proletariat, etc. In other words, it ignores the actual reality of society which is based on class division, exploitation, unequal distribution and pattern of domination.

In fact, you're merely advocating a return to the pseudo social science of functionalism.

Btw, can I just add, to avoid confusion, that the research into the link between lettuce and lust, whether stupid or not, is not the province of social science but is the kind of pointless research one often finds in the natural sciences.

[Belisarius]

there are plenty of things which are useful for all classes. a good example is a therapy for, let us say, schizophrenia. all classes benefit from having such a therapy. i do not deny that certain knowledge can be useful for one, but subversive for another class. in those cases the best we can do is criticizing the established phenomenon in a constructive way in order to eliminate domination and unequality (like e.g. Marcuse has done by examining society in such a way to uncover the way capitalism hushes every subversion)

imo, i still consider lust as a psychological phenomenon, but, as you said, it is researched as if it were a physiological phenomenon. we discussed the reduction of the psyche to physical determinism in the beginning of the thread.

[Calmwinds]

No, the sciences shouldn't be based on any utility. The drive of these scientists is mostly for uncovering "hidden laws of the universe" and to objectively measure reality. (Spare me the subjectivist relativist language, please). They should not be forced to operate to any ideas of "utility". Of course many are naturally attracted to finding many useful things as there is more recognition to be found in such things, or they feel compelled to help mankind, but that that should be enough. Science marches on its own agenda.

The reduction of the psyche and the mind to the brain is completely fine with me. All of psychology should at best be reduced to neuroscience(and therefore materialism).

[Hit The North]

No, the sciences shouldn't be based on any utility. The drive of these scientists is mostly for uncovering "hidden laws of the universe" and to objectively measure reality. (Spare me the subjectivist relativist language, please). They should not be forced to operate to any ideas of "utility". Of course many are naturally attracted to finding many useful things as there is more recognition to be found in such things, or they feel compelled to help mankind, but that that should be enough. Science marches on its own agenda.



But it needs to be emphasised that this thread is discussing social science and therefore we are discussing a science which is completely bound up with ideological and material interests. The agenda you ascribe to the natural sciences of 'uncovering "hidden laws of the universe" and to objectively measure reality' is not achievable in the social sciences. In fact social science runs according to a number of competing agendas which are rooted in the structure of the society itself.

Not to mention that it is naive to present the natural sciences as occupying their own realm of rationality and interest, divorced from the social pressures of capitalism and its agenda.


The reduction of the psyche and the mind to the brain is completely fine with me. All of psychology should at best be reduced to neuroscience(and therefore materialism).As soon as you reduce all of psychology to neuroscience, it stops being a social science and becomes a natural science. Of course, you also end up with a totally reductionist model of human history and individual behaviour too.