21–30 of 71 posts
This is the key flaw in this article: “The truth is that such questions are open to empirical study and it is possible for social science to study them scientifically.” Here is someone proclaiming to be a scientist, and then throwing out proclamations of ‘truth’ not backed by evidence. Goedel proved logically that any axiomatic system of information exchange can have truths that are not provable. It’s possible human…
I'm always amazed that someone who by all rights should be intimately familiar with the history of social science research like McIntyre can seemingly be so unaware of it. There was an empirical, modernist period in social sciences in the 40-80s of exactly the kind suggested by Lee and it was an absolute disaster. The results couldn't be related to the real world, and no one was really able to get over the inherent […
Wait. Do I understand you correctly that an objective approach failed and your conclusion is to be more subjective?
I wonder whether questionnaires should be replaced by more objective metrics, such as heart rate, pupil dilation, blood hormone levels, EEGs of the participants.
The other problem I see is the lack of predictive models in the social sciences, especially psychology. The type of models we have today are akin to 'celestial spheres' in ancient physics and the boiler theory of fever in medieval medicine (which led to blood-letting).
I've always found it uneasy that much of the data in social science studies comprise 5-point scale answers by volunteers to questionnaires, or observations of microcosmic situations that do not really represent reality (e.g. attempting to prove a hypothesis about generosity by giving participants $20 each and observing how they spend/gift it under a specially designed situation). I wonder whether questionnaires shoul…
Without doubt, in economics and political science at least the problem is that the research questions are infinitely more complex than in 19C medicine; not that the methods are not quantitatively rigorous. The questions are obviously also of a more normative and moral nature than in medicine.
I'm always amazed that someone who by all rights should be intimately familiar with the history of social science research like McIntyre can seemingly be so unaware of it. There was an empirical, modernist period in social sciences in the 40-80s of exactly the kind suggested by Lee and it was an absolute disaster. The results couldn't be related to the real world, and no one was really able to get over the inherent […
> After a lot of arguing and furious paper writing in the late 80s-90s, everyone began working on how to deal with that bias, moving it front and center where it can be handled instead of subtly hiding it in a bunch of numbers and pretending it didn't exist. And the result of that is... what exactly?
I'm always amazed that someone who by all rights should be intimately familiar with the history of social science research like McIntyre can seemingly be so unaware of it. There was an empirical, modernist period in social sciences in the 40-80s of exactly the kind suggested by Lee and it was an absolute disaster. The results couldn't be related to the real world, and no one was really able to get over the inherent […
> The results couldn't be related to the real world, and no one was really able to get over the inherent [1] influence of the author in the data. Wait. Do I understand you correctly that an objective approach failed and your conclusion is to be more subjective?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The results couldn't be related to the real world, and no one was really able to get over the inherent [1] influence of the author in the data. Wait. Do I understand you correctly that an objective approach failed and your conclusion is to be more subjective?
The "objective" approach was never actually objective. It had just as many biases and issues as everything after it, but everyone sort of pretended it didn't. The change was recognizing that the same data wasn't objective and that researchers couldn't make it so. Instead, theory shifted to analyzing those inherent biases and studying how they affected research.
The social scientists do everything for grant money. Foundations don't give grant money to figure out the truth. They get grant money to get someone to make some scientific sounding propaganda that supports whatever narrative they're pushing. Who comes up with the narrative to push though, and why?
That's a very absolute statement. The social scientists do everything for Grant money. Do you have some sort of data to back that up? I mean in a way it is true that research can only be conducted if there is Grant money but that should be true for all of the sciences.
>Foundations don't give grant money to figure out the truth. They get grant money to get someone to make some scientific sounding propaganda that supports whatever narrative they're pushing.
This might be true sometimes but do you think it is true for the majority of research? Not all foundations even have a "narrative" as far as I can tell.
>Who comes up with the narrative to push though, and why?
Isn't that a weirdly open question to ask at the end of a very assertive statement?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The results couldn't be related to the real world, and no one was really able to get over the inherent [1] influence of the author in the data. Wait. Do I understand you correctly that an objective approach failed and your conclusion is to be more subjective?
The "objective" approach was never actually objective. It had just as many biases and issues as everything after it, but everyone sort of pretended it didn't. The change was recognizing that the same data wasn't objective and that researchers couldn't make it so. Instead, theory shifted to analyzing those inherent biases and studying how they affected research.
And yet, the best tools for this are underfunded or ignored: replication and publishing negative results.