Here is an interesting article regarding the relationship between natural science and social science, specific to public policy.
I recently had an exchange with a sociology major who insistent upon the relevance of Marxist theory in social science (I should be clear though; the immediate intent of this post is not a discussion of Marxist theory, though of course, that discussion can emerge). I was willing to admit that the social scientist can tease around ideas and theories that those in the natural sciences would probably never take too seriously (e.g., I can’t for the life of me think of a single chemist, physicist, or biologist who would use a theory of exploitation within their respectable disciplines). However, I insisted that social scientists ought to be continuous with the natural sciences, specifically biology. I mentioned, for example, that emergent complexity has far more explanatory power than Marxism. Thus, social scientists ought to embrace this theory rather than Marxism, especially since Marxism isn’t even a viable scientific theory. Of course, like many social scientists, he was unwilling for this move and was inclined to think of social science as su generis.
These sorts of debates are popular because of the constant creeping in of radical relativism, interpretative theories, and worst of all, Post-Modernism. This is unfortunate, as the origins of disciplines, such as Anthropology, emerged as explicitly scientific (e.g,, Darwin, Neurath, Tyler, Saussure, and many more). Consequently, we often see departments that have a traditional scientific social scientist alongside a supposed psychoanalytic theorist; we see a social scientist who is skilled in data management, statistical testing, etc. alongside individuals who see science as filtered through a western white male psyche.
To conclude, the philosopher constantly complains of having to explain exactly what it is they do because of peoples’ lack of understanding. Likewise, the dedicated “scientific” social scientist is left with a similar burden.
I saw that discussion too, but honestly now, how many sociology majors want to get involved in math. Not only that, I wouldn’t exactly say the social sciences, outside of economics, are ‘skilled’ in data management, testing, etc.
Edgar,
Re: “I saw that discussion too, but honestly now, how many sociology majors want to get involved in math [?]”
I would hesitate to over-generalize sociology majors. My suspicion is that they, like other social science undergraduates, typically receive statistical and data management training sufficient for their respected areas. I do not think it has anything to do with disliking math for the most part.
Re: “Not only that, I wouldn’t exactly say the social sciences, outside of economics, are ‘skilled’ in data management, testing, etc.”
With all due respect, I’d avoid arguing from ignorance. Disciplines in the social sciences such as cognitive psychology, psychobiology, evolutionary psychology, biological anthropology to only mention a few, receive not only rigorous training in statistical data management, they also, unlike in economics, receive rigorous training in experimental courses. Not to mention, my advisor (an Anthropologist) was able to sign off statistical data management as his second language in grad school. That said, I might add that the discipline of economics, though certainly a respectable one, has yet to reach the scientific success of the disciplines just mentioned.
You might hesitate, but I won’t. I’m sure that a simple survey of the average sociology major would show a severe lack of mathematical training. Personally being in an environment where I heard academic advising, the most common answer given to a student by an academic adviser asking ‘…for a major that doesn’t require me to do much math…’ the answer tended to be either Political Science or Sociology. You can dispute my anecdotal evidence or call me a liar, but that’s what I constantly heard.
Again, not much ignorance here but I’ll avoid a dispute if possible. I’d suggest taking a look at ‘The Cult of Statistical Significance: How the Standard Error Costs Us Jobs, Justice, and Lives.’ for clear examples of poor use of statistics in the social science, of which I blame a lack of training in pure math and statistics.
Reviewing a graph on the average GRE performance by degree concentration, I see that Anthropology, Psychology, and Sociology majors all score considerably lower on the quantitative portion of the exam than Economic majors, and even Philosophy majors.
In fact, Art & Performance, Foreign Language, and Religion majors score higher than Anthropology, Psychology, and Sociology majors.
Aaron & Edgar,
Thank you for the exchange, though just to be clear, I am only insisting that the social sciences can benefit by staying in tune with the natural sciences, specifically biology and chemistry. My experience has shown that this has been the case for a good portion of social scientists (namely, the disciplines mentioned earlier). However, in recent decades there has been a growing trend to accept pseudoscientific theories into the social sciences, which is essentially my complaint.
Though one last point. Are you suggesting that the results from the quantitative portion of the GRE provide viable insights as to which disciplines are in fact considered more of a science? If that is the case, and assuming we are looking at the same GRE results (2010-2011?), then economics would be considered more of a science than chemistry, biology, computer science, and earth/atmospheric science. This certainly can’t be true right? Please don’t take this as a jab against economic majors.
Considering that the results also show significant discrepancies in sample size of selected majors makes me suspicious as to what these results are really depicting. But I’m not terribly familiar with how these surveys are done.
Tim,
Re: “Are you suggesting that the results from the quantitative portion of the GRE provide viable insights as to which disciplines are in fact considered more of a science?”
Of course not. I am suggesting (I think prudently) that how well individuals perform on a quantitative exam measures ceteris paribus their quantitative skills, which in turn are significantly influenced by their undergraduate courses.
Re: Economics as a science.
I don’t view economics any more or less a science than chemistry. For that matter, I don’t view good sociology or anthropology any more or less a science; each are scientific disciplines.
That said, I agree with your primary thesis: sociologists and anthropologists should divorce themselves entirely from the postmodernist / cultural & political critics which infect their scientific ranks.