August 23, 2006

• Bor-ing.
• (Not the article, but the idea of marrying women from Dullsville.)
• So much of this article is disingenuous. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do ( Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill ( American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier ( Institute for Social Research). Replace all those 'wills' with 'mays', and he'd be a lot more accurate. He even admits this major fault at the end, dressing it as a final word of warning: A word of caution, though: As with any social scientific study, it's important not to confuse correlation with causation. Wotta tool.
• social scientific study *cough*bullshit*cough* Funny. This article seems to imply that there are many kinds of women, but only one kind of man.
• Perhaps (just perhaps), he is showing us how ridiculous these various studies are. I would never advise a fellow to marry a girl who has no ambition, except to stay at home, cleaning and raising children. The reasons are so stunningly obvious that I don't think there are academic studies to prove them.
• Think Forbes may lose some readership on this one. Dumbasses... The forum was practically empty 10 minutes ago, but has quickly gone aflame
• I can imagine his thinking though. Sitting at the kitchen table at breakfast, thinking about his column deadline only a few hours away, and nothing to write about. His wife comes in. "Honey, I'm leaving you. I'm really a career woman. You can keep the kids. I'll have an affair with the vice president instead. Bye." Suddenly inspiration strikes, and he has a column!!!!!!!!! ** a55}{0lE **
• He has an entry on wikipedia here. Apparently this is his bete noire. no idea how to put a circumflex over the e
• Do likê I do, NE: go to Answêrs.com and look up the word, thên copy and pastê thê charactêrs.
• Jeeze, the slide show accompanying the article is even more problematic, if that were possible. I'll certainly never marry a career woman now, as I'm informed that if I do my house will be dirtier: In 2005, two University of Michigan scientists concluded that if your wife has a job earning more than $15 an hour (roughly $30,000 a year), she will do 1.9 hours less housework a week. I suppose with that extra income we could hire a cleaning service. Of course, I might need a nurse as well: A 2001 study found that having a wife who works less than 40 hours a week has no impact on your health, but having a wife who works more than 40 hours a week has "substantial, statistically significant, negative effects on changes in her husband's health over that time span." Damn, RNs are expensive to hire these days, so the economic advantages are beginning to look less clear. Of course I'm always careful to maximize the economic return of all my personal relationships.
• I think he is just citing a bunch of studies and not indicting anyone. I don't disbelieve the studies, but I would question his liberal use of the term "more likely" which could be a 0.01% increase or a 60% increase. He doesn't clarify. I wouldn't doubt any of this though, looks like the DINKS (Double income no kids) are turning on each other. I also think that is a similar study was done for men on say, their cheating habits, this would have fallen under the radar. This is a good sign of women's liberation, a good dose of criticism. Welcome to equality. social scientific study *cough*bullshit*cough* *quietly recovers a few hundred years of economics, political theory, philosophy, etc. etc. from the trash can nunia threw it in, and places it back on the table*
• "The work environment provides a host of potential partners, and individuals frequently find themselves spending a great deal of time with these individuals." So don't try to be interesting yourself, just be like Old Man MacGregor from down the street, keep your lady locked up good and tight, don't let her go to card games or nuthin' with her friends, and soon she'll be so isolated as to not be able to see you for the controlling creep you are. Welcome to the 21st century.
• You're allowed to keep that stuff, glama, only if you cross out the word "science." Cuz that shit ain't science. *puts new baggie in trash can*
• So don't try to be interesting yourself, just be like Old Man MacGregor from down the street, keep your lady locked up good and tight, don't let her go to card games or nuthin' with her friends, and soon she'll be so isolated as to not be able to see you for the controlling creep you are. That is a knee jerk reaction. This explanation can also apply to men in the workplace and is non-gender specific, but this would also level the playing field about the old assumption men cheat. Maybe men don't cheat because they are men. Maybe they cheat because the see Lisa their Marketing director 8 hours a day and Kelly their wife for 4.
• You're allowed to keep that stuff, glama, only if you cross out the word "science." Cuz that shit ain't science. *puts new baggie in trash can* Nunia I think you need to do some studying on how scientific science really is, but I I don't want to go down that road.
• Anothêr of his Forbês columns. Hê's mainly a têch writer though.
• That is a knee jerk reaction. Absolutely. I feel this kneed to react to jerks this way. Hyperbole, sure. I just question the message of "don't marry these women" rather than one of "meet the challenge". I suspect the latter is a lot more satisfying for everyone. And with the divorce rate what it is, clearly the, shall we say, more orthodox marriages that buddy is proposing aren't working out that great either.
• The studies may or may not be interesting and his use of them doesn't necessarily indict the original work. Usually this sort of work consists of large-scale correlational studies which are easy to misinterpret. It's awfully common to misuse sociological work for political ends. Still, I've got to stand up for social science here. Just because it doesn't follow the experimental model we've derived from physics doesn't mean it isn't science. Descriptive sciences such as ecology or geology generally don't follow that model.
• Nunia I think you need to do some studying on how scientific science really is, but I I don't want to go down that road. Science is what I do for a living. In fact, I live according to the holy gospel of Thomas Kuhn. Furthermore, social science is not science.
• I thought the economics of prostitution article sounded familiar...
• nunia, what is science to you then? I'm curious because I study how courts identify scientific evidence.
• TAKE IT OFF!! *fidgits in seat, munches popcorn heatedly*
• LOTS of married women - of all classes and education levels - move in and out of the work force to varying degrees as family circumstances call for it. I really didn't see that addressed in the article.
• I'm getting a brain cramp reading that prostitution article. Buddy either doesn't get or deliberately ignores Edlund and Korn's hypothesis -- seen right there smack dab in the abstract itself -- that prostitutes' pay is partly compensation for diminished marriage prospects. And his generalization of "high pay" is just a teensy-bit problematic as well. God, I miss moneyjane...
• What did you do to drive her away, captain?
• Nunia I think you need to do some studying on how scientific science really is, but I I don't want to go down that road. Science is what I do for a living. In fact, I live according to the holy gospel of Thomas Kuhn. Furthermore, social science is not science. I read Kuhn nunia. I don't want to derail this discussion, but if you read Kuhn you can see how the problem with phlogiston illustrates how scientific science is, and truly demonstrates Humes problem with inductive reference, which coincidentally drags deduction with it. I have studied the philosophy of science extensively nunia, because I am an Anthropology grad who desires a science of culture, for the same exact feelings you express. I changed my tune after much reading and study under some competent professors. Now yes this material he cites may be misrepresented because it may have been taken out of context. Another flaw may be the studies themselves. My feeling is that, I don't find it highly unlikely that women have a better chance to cheat when in the workplace. As I said before both men and women could be victims to more hours spent with co-workers versus their spouse. this could lead to extra-marital affairs for both sexes.
• "I don't want to get married, I just want to get divorced"
• What did you do to drive her away, captain? I loved her too much. I couldn't be all Buddhist about it, and not need to own something in order to appreciate its beauty, no, I wanted her all for myself, so I locked her up good and tight and and didn't let her go to card games or nuthin'. That, and I ran out my Visa card.
• Ladies, this shirt won't iron itself!
• sfred: Science (or at least, my understanding of it) is a process whereby a model is proposed for a phemonenon, and where hypotheses are proposed for the outcome. The input is introduced to the model, the outcome is observed and quantified, and the hypotheses are evaluated for validity. Theories and laws are then derived from the validity and precision of these hypotheses. In some cases, the model and the hypothesis can be the same thing. Controls are required to contstrain any variables that might interfere with the isolation of the process being tested in the model. Furthermore, the model should be reproducible (producing the same results when the experiments are conducted by others) and falsifiable (able to be proven wrong). As such, you cannot take a group of people, introduce variable X and get a predictable Y outcome that is reproducible, quantifiable, and precise. There are too many unconstrained and unconstrainable variables that destroy a model's ability to have an unambiguous and predictive outcome.This then becomes more interpretation than science. Predictions are the very core of science. If you cannot predict that an outcome will always be the result of a specific input, then it is not science.
• Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker argued that when the labor specialization in a marriage decreases--if, for example, both spouses have careers--the overall value of the marriage is lower for both partners because less of the total needed work is getting done, making life harder for both partners and divorce more likely. Yeah, if the guy doesn't pick up his share of the work at home! What a putz.
• Just because something isn't a science (and I'd throw in with nunia that science must have a predictive lever) doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. In the many times that I've interacted with people who do things like social science or psychology, I have seen the most strenuous and even heated arguments regarding the subject, and it always baffles me. They seem to be acting under the unspoken presumption that their discipline of study is somehow lessened by not being a "science." Poppycock. Adding science to the name (like "social science") or theory ("political theory" or "literary theory") is in vogue, mainly for sociological reasons. The great changes of society in the last couple hundred years have been entirely due to experimentation with our physical surroundings -- these endeavors eventually became coherent and predictive courses of study, where the general progress and establishment were adhering to theories which were, for all intents and purposes, universally agreed upon. Where is the universal agreement in political or social science? Put a Marxist and a Hegelian in a room and they'll duke it out over a lot of things. Where is the coherent social gestalt in which social scientists universally work? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find one. Because all of these big changes in our lives were brought about by scientific endeavor, there became this notion that science was Above All Else. Hence the prickliness when someone says something isn't science. But what's wrong with psychology not being a science? What's wrong with sociology not being a science? All it does is exactly do what all the psychologists and sociologists do in their professional lives -- research and debate and use the methods of science to try to form that first universal gestalt. So I put this question out: presuming social science, and political theory and philosphy, psychology, sociology, and the like weren't sciences. What's wrong with that?
• Nunia that explanation is wrought with holes. I am done with that path of the discussion, but let me tell you the explanation has been torn apart by modern thinkers/scientists/physicists/philosophers.
• People, people -- don't get all Metafilter about this -- focus on what's important: making fun of some dumb mook.
• So I put this question out: presuming social science, and political theory and philosphy, psychology, sociology, and the like weren't sciences. What's wrong with that? My argument isn't that the social sciences are so scientific, but that science isn't as scientific as nunia thinks it is, and in this the line between science and pseudo science starts to become fuzzier.
• Psychology and sociology strike me as two fields that are quasi-scientific and could become more scientific as we make advances in neurology. If we say the critical element of science is predictability would certain sociological studies qualify? Say for example the Milgram experiments. If we repeated them, would we get a statisical result that is consistent? We can't predict how an individual will react clearly but couldn't we predict a statistical outcome across a group of test subjects? Isn't that also predictability?
• Are you referring to "modern" thinkers/scientists/philosphers, or "post-modern" ones? There is, as I'm sure you're aware, most assuredly a big difference. If post-modernism ever truly made its way into science, well, we'd have nothing left would we? I'm guessing some of your modern thinkers are the ones that dispute the existence of objective truth? Epistemological arguments very rapidly devolve into navel-gazing, and science is, whether the likes of Wittgenstein like it or not, is based upon at the very least the presumption that objective truth exists. If that's not the case, then why are people defensive about being excluded from a system which deludes itself into thinking that objective reality exists?
• If what happened in real life were as controlled as what happens in an experiment somewhere in a lab, maybe. It may be repeatable, but it provides limited evidence about what happens under "natural" conditions. Stastical analysis is a useful tool, but we've gone a bit overboard in placing faith in it as a source of objective truth. What does statisical significance mean anyway? An alpha value of 0.05 doesn't have magical properties. We ignore that even "real" science is influenced by the humans carrying it out.
• I think that what are considered the social sciences more properly reside in the historical category of "arts." That said, there's no reason to think that an art can be any less rigorous or factual than a science. which is to say,: you're both pretty! But as a Forbes reader, I'm not going to marry either of you.
• replace "can" with "must" please. must be any less rigorous or factual. They can, certainly.
• I am done with that path of the discussion, but let me tell you the explanation has been torn apart by modern thinkers/scientists/physicists/philosophers I'm sorry, but I'm not persuaded by, "You're wrong, and I can't be bothered to tell you why, but there are unnamed and important others who agree with me." Furthermore, my explanation is the one taught in each of the many chemistry, physics, and biology classes I've taken. Its principle is reproduced over and over again in the attendant laboratory classes I've had. It's written in every textbook, all of which are reviewed by peer scientists for correctness. If you have an issue with my assessment, take it up with the authors.
• Thanks for your answer nunia. I've no intention to jump on you here, just that this is what I work on. I've a PhD thesis waiting to go to my committee here on my desk that addresses just these issues. What you've said sounds a lot like Popper, which is what you usually hear from scientists when you ask them that question and it's the answer I'd have given when I was one myself (after a fashion). Cetain social sciences do seem to meet your definition. Much of cognitive psychology is highly model and prediction-oriented. Economists develop mathematical models that are testable by natural experiment, just like in ecology which, not surprisingly, derived much of its early modeling methodology from economics. Certain areas of sociology do as well. Controls in these fields are often developed statistically. My point is that while I'm sure much of what we call social science wouldn't meet a Popperian definition, an awful lot actually does. Still, there's a problem with that definition: empirical studies of scientists at work suggest that they do not behave as Karl Popper says they ought to. This is what glamajamma's getting at, I think. Does this invalidate science and leave us in some post-modern wasteland of no verifiable knowledge? Of course not, no more than the failure of logical positivism did. It does mean that notions of what is or is not science are far more complicated and controversial than it seems on the surface.
• **Long rambling comment alert before I leave work** My wife has been on maternity leave since last Labour Day. She has mixed feelings about returning to work in two weeks. She doesn't want to be apart from our daughter, but doesn't want to give up her career and stay home. This will lead to her getting stressed. Admittedly, I don't do enough around the house as I should (and she'll comment on that when she reads it - she lurks here, but has never joined), so some of that work will be reprioritized and either not done, or we'll spend precious evening or weekend time at it, which means less time with the baby. We both get stressed. We had a pre-child lifestyle that allowed for annual vacations to Mexico or Cuba, now who knows. Stress and uncertainty. Couples react differently to stress. Some take the easy way out (and this is what this guy seems to suggest is most likely), particularly if kids aren't in the picture. Others may get counselling. The majority deal with it. According to the studies this guy cites, we'll never be happy again, so we should give up now. Real science can't repeat us, so it can't predict what we'll do. Schrodinger's Cat science may be able to suggest our quantum state, but it can't be proven. ** ends ramble, can't make sense of what he wrote, but is too tired to rewrite, and has long cycle home before thunderstorm hits **
• Well since the thread has already headed that way I will discuss it. First you have the problem of Hume's induction, which any scientist should be familiar with. Unfortunately the process of deduction has induction implicitly written into it. Case in point the elimination of all variables or at least an understanding they exist is an impossibility, because the process by which we assess outside variables is an inductive process. Popper attempted to address the issue of pseudo science versus real science, but fails to address the problems inherent in induction. Carnap also attacks the issue with his theory of probability for competing theories and why we choose the, but the probability model fails as well. then there are many issues revolving around the ability of man to comprehend data in general. To really illustrate this a philosopher/mathematician by the name of Poincare has devised a 2 dimensional space the illustrated how the dimensions of the world man resides in can completely distorted by the physics of the world, and hence mans grasp of said world would always be wrong. I have it at home, and can get you the title later. See one must really tackle the issue of Hume and induction to truly understand the problems with mans relation to science. at first the problem will strike you as rather easy and mundane to circumvent, but as with Zeno's paradox, one realizes it is not. this is why I cited phlogiston. It meets all the criteria for a good theory according to a simple understanding, but in the long run it demonstrates the failure, because phlogiston never existed. None of these people are "postmodern" and this is not continental philosophy here. I believe those arguments divert from Hume's problem, down a road of double talk and dead ends. All I can do is reference people you haven't read and that is frustrating, because it is trying to bring you up to speed on years of reading. I cite phlogiston because it is an easy example of the flaws of science and our relationship to it. Read Karl Popper, Hume, Newton, Liebniz, Poincare, Carnap, Van Fraasen, and a lot of people I don't remember, outside of that I would have to give a class. A graduate level course, one which I am not equipped to teach. To follow the real problem is not so much making predictions with society, but creating situations that would eliminate variables would be an ethical problem.
• What was Darwin doing on the Beagal? Could you label it science? If so then the predictive requirement claimed above that an activity must fulfil inorder to be considered science becomes superfluous. Or something.
• glamajamma, I read nunia's approach as Popperian. That means it at least contains a work-around for the induction problem and we're not arguing about positivism. This is also the standard approach taught scientists and the approach used by the US Supreme Court. I'm with you in that I think it's wrong, but it is a reasonable approach for a scientist to adopt.
• sfred, I agree, but the problem I was having , was that the discounting of all social sciences as garbage. I also cringe when every "real scientist" puts too much faith in their science, the authority derived from such faith can create intellectual quagmires, not only in science but in ethics as well.
• randomaction, I would say that what Darwin did on the Beagle was research. Observation. The science came in when he started putting things together, and came up with a hypothesis: speciation through natural selection. Then he and others followed on and assembled predictions (what sorts of things might you expect to see in different environments/different ecosystems with many niche gaps, small niche gaps, and differing selection pressures?), lo and behold, the predictions bore fruit, and we are still using that scientific theory to make predictions and find results all the time. glammajamma, I see that you're approaching the notion of science from the epistemological angle that "Deduction relies on ex nihilo, ad hoc assertions, so it's bad!" and "Induction presumes future events of a specific sort will resemble past events of that sort. Why? Because they always have before. Therefore it's circular logic, which is bad!" The problem with that notion re-introduces the question. If knowledge is illusory and objectivity impossible, why do social scientists bother using failed principles? And why does anyone bother doing anything if objective truth may exist but it is epistemologically impossible to divine it? To steal another's words: I refute it thus! *stubs toe on rock and points to computer sitting on desk, monkeyfilter being a tangible demonstration that, however it happened, induction works* The answer, of course, is fairly Popperian in its response, and also somewhat pedestrian -- because it works. Phlogiston is a classic example of the triumph of scientific processes. You burn something, it loses mass. What goes away? Hypothesis: phlogiston. It was accepted for a long time because there wasn't anyone really examining other predictions that could be made from its existence. Eventually, lo and behold, chemistry came to the rescue showing that it is a process of oxidation and the process was understood. Not only that, but it also explained how some things that burn GAIN mass (such as some metals). Sounds pretty scientific to me.
• MonkeyFilter: Don't get all Metafilter about this. MonkeyFilter: Focus on what's important: making fun of some dumb mook.
• I am not arguing against scientific theory here chimaera, and I agree "however it happened, induction works." Hume said it himself, and it is all we have. I agree with you completely, what I am saying is that taking that into consideration, we must understand that Popper's demarcation can't discount social theory, which is what he was trying to do, especially Marx. Hell I want what Popper wants and Hume wants and what nunia wants, but "we can't always get what we want." I do believe we can attempt move as close to that goal as possible. I don't want continental idealism, or postmodern dialog, I want the best method to interpret the world as humanly possible. Like I said though, "too much faith in their science, the authority derived from such faith can create intellectual quagmires, not only in science but in ethics as well."
• By the way the article got pulled. via boingboing
• was that the discounting of all social sciences as garbage glama: Who said social sciences are garbage? I never said it was garbage, I only said that it wasn't a science, and certainly others here have said that even if it isn't a science, that doesn't mean it's worthless. It sounds to me like you've read a lot about what other people have to say about science and interpreted their philosophy here for our benefit, and yet you're putting words into my mouth that I never said. You're appealing to whatever authorities you recognize to validate your discipline when no one is attacking your discipline. I think we're talking at cross purposes here.
• Gawker's Cliff Notes version was quite handy.
• As someone who is focused on human health, those strict lines between disciplines fall apart rather easily; understanding disease causation requires more than just an understanding of biology. Like sfred, I used to be in the "hard" sciences where things were all nice and controlled and absolute. But then after reading a few too many papers on what some cells did in a petri dish or some animals serving as a proxy for humans experienced, I decided I'd rather look at what those humans are experiencing themselves. By the definition of science involving randomized repeatable experiments is really narrow definition that leaves out a lot.
• Pretty amusing that the article got pulled. There are two separate arguments here. (1) Are social sciences science? If we follow Popper, I'm suggesting that at least some of them are, some definitely aren't, and some are controversial. (2) There is a second question about whether Popper or (insert philosopher of science here) is an adequate way to define science. I'm actually a bit of an agnostic here since answering this question is not something I need to do for my work, but I suspect not for the reason I gave earlier. I'm much more comfortable with a social theory of science than I suspect a lot of other people would be, but then I am a post-modernist at least to some extent. (I'm an actor-network theorist, should anyone care.) However, this has nothing to do with nunia'a original statement. If we rephrase it and say that there are some important distinctions between the physical and the social sciences, then I'd be happy to agree.
• Jesus Christ people! It's called social science it's not called science, and furhtermore it's called science not social science. I fucking hate pursuing archaeology when I get caught in between "mom" and "dad" and their inane arguments like this.

  "There are no theories unless based upon fact but facts exist only within the context of a theory."- Julian Steward

  All of this work is going to good purposes. Somewhere down the line someone is going to be able to decide whether one thing or the other is bullshit because of all this research and work. It's all within the processes of humanity, so stop trying to justify your own life's path and follow it and learn its landscape instead.
• Ah, found out why the article got pulled: it made Fark. Now that thread is a train wreck that makes the worst monkey look positively poo-free by comparison!
• MonkeyFilter: positively poo-free by comparison! [thanks for coverin' my back, Queso]
• nunia - your definition of science includes psychology, but does not include astronomy or large sections of geology (both of which often rely on observations alone, without the ability to introduce controls). If you drop the requirement for controls, it also includes some sociology. I would say that sociology borders between science and historical/social science modes - some studies follow a scientific mode - proposing hypothesis and model, making observations, adjusting model, etc. Other studies follow a historical mode, by making observations and proposing a model. It's less formalised and obviously there are no controls, but social sciences like history, economics, anthropology, geography all take data and from that form models of phenomenon.
• But on the article: yes, it does infantalize men, and basically assume that all the responsibility for making a good home rests on the woman. Ladies, this shirt won't iron itself! No, that's why I get my husband to do mine. He's a very good ironer. I bought him a lovely ironing board, too.
• jb: psychology does not provide quantifiable and reproducible results. Any one behavior can be explained by any number of factors, whether known or unknown, and that gets in the way of making a robust model. Some predictions and interpretations can be drawn from observation and testing, but not anything that can be isolated and applied to every person. The discipline is entirely qualitative, and there isn't yet a concensus within the psychological community on the agents of behavior (or even a method to quantify behavior against which such agents can be measured). Furthermore, if you drop the requirement for controls, then you're not testing a process or set of processes, but an open system, and that invites its own set of problems. Not that it can't be done, and not that the information gained isn't useful, but it's not proper science. I'll agree with you on the astronomy/geology thing for the most part. Astronomy is generally observational, but is based on many aspects of science, including spectroscopy and the laws of physics. Without these tools, observations and interpretations would be impossible. However, scientific modelling is possible for astronomy, even if they can't get their hands on their subjects. It just takes a little creativity. Geology, on the other hand, is a bit more slippery. It occupies that nebulous space between geography and physics/chemistry, and is still getting its footing in the scientific community. Geology is observational and scientific at several scales, from the continent to the isotope. Geochemistry and geophysics are nothing but rigorous testing and validation of hypotheses, whereas geologic mapping is basically observational and interpretive. Both the scientific modelling and the observation are necessary to obtain meaningful results. However, as is the case with astronomy, without knowledge of chemistry, physics, and calculus, it's difficult to isolate and interpret information on geologic features. Sociology has its place and its value, and I'm not discrediting it. Heck, my first associate's degree was in social sciences, and I can appreciate the work they do, but I still say it is not a science.
• they were too good to let go by, Gram'Ma....
• Your model is awfully narrow nunia. Jeeze, you'd kick Galileo and Darwin out of the club!
• And what of boxing, the sweet science?
• science isn't as scientific as nunia thinks it is Perhaps you should get some some new, improved science, now 15% more sciency.
• I hate it when my comments aren't as commenty as my thoughts are thoughty.
• And domestic science? Only I feel I may have made the perfect lemon cheesecake. I have subjected it to peer review. People have peered at it and said that it looks delicious.
• nunia, I actually agree with you on the difference between social science and science. As a historian, I would never say that history is a science, or if, in fact, the scientific method is even possible or desirable for the study of history. The same is true for much of the study of humanity and society. But two things stand out. The first is minor - you said, "jb: psychology does not provide quantifiable and reproducible results." Which, actually, it does. Psychology is all about quantifiable and reproducible results (with controls). They are sometimes specific to circumstances (much like zoology and the environmental sciences), but the entire concept of psychology is that the human mind may be a black box, but that we can indirectly and quantify the phenomenon (disclosure: my brother-in-law is a social psychologist). As for being able to control all circumstances - they do try, but I would like to note that many other sciences (clinical medicine, the gold standard, or any biology) also deal with complex systems with a myriad of things happening at once. You say - "Some predictions and interpretations can be drawn from observation and testing, but not anything that can be isolated and applied to every person. The discipline is entirely qualitative, and there isn't yet a concensus within the psychological community on the agents of behavior (or even a method to quantify behavior against which such agents can be measured)." -- But I think you misunderstand psychology. They are trying to isolate phenomenon which are universal to the human mind, and they are by no means entirely qualitative (or else why would my BIL be so competent in SPSS? Heck, even the history I do isn't all qualitative, though by no means science). There isn't consensus within the psychology community, but, notably, neither is there within the climate science community, nor the theorectical physics community. (If consensus were necessary, than there is no science on the whole planet). But you are wrong when you talk about no consensus on how to study behavioural and mental phenomenon - there are different methods, as with any science, but they are just as rigourous and hypothesis-controlled experi Now, perhaps you are confused because psychology exists on the border between the two. There are psychology subfields/studies that fit your requirements far better than many accepted sciences - including some subfields/studies in zoology, vulcanology, evironmental science, etc. And there are some psychological studies which follow methodologies which are decidedly social science oriented, when that is better suited to their questions. I have seen both - but a great deal of psychology does follow a strict scientific method, with controlled experimental research. Psychology will use both tools, though I believe that in their orientation to models and universalizing that psychology is more akin to science. (a social scientist might not generalise across culture, if culture is what is under study, but psychology is all about the universal experience of the human brain - all brains? - even as it is affected by its environment). Or perhaps what really you want to say is that these all study physical phenomenon, whereas psychology studies mental phenomenon (leaving aside the connections with neurology). This is true - but within the scientific side of psychology, they are just as interested in universalizing and quantifying these mental phenomenon as the biologist is in universalizing and quantifying the incrediably complex and not at all well understood systems of life. ------------------------------------------------
• Whereas the social sciences tend to work very differently. Which brings me to my second point - you are very right that the social sciences are not science, but that does not make them any less valid. No one would ever think of saying that because historians do not use the scientific method, therefore the history they tell did not happen. Why is this any less true of sociology, anthropology, political science or economics? They use different methodologies - methodologies often adapted to much more suitable to studying human phenomenon in all its variation and chaotic individuality. So when presented with sociology, anthropology, political science, or economics, I do think that what they say is of some more value than my simple, anecdotal, personal observations on contemporary society. That's not to say they are always right, since social scientists, like scientists, are always refining, overturning old models, even sometimes making poor or invalid studies. But the overall effort - to understand the functionings of the world through the powers of logic, observation, models (even if they don't use the word), and most of all - evidence - these all put them not as scientists, but certainly as fellow travellers, endeavouring to understand phenomenon for which the strict scientific method is not at all suited. --------- Looking back on your comments, I see that there actually has been a misunderstanding. You seem to have taken the phrase "social scientific" to mean a science of society, whereas I hear it as the adjectival form of the phrase-word "social sciences" (which has its own discrete meaning from science). When you called bullshit on "social scientific", I (and some others) thought that you were calling bullshit on social science, as its own valid area of disciplines. That said, I will leave my comments, since I have been thinking about this sort of thing for some time, and because there have been others who have actually dismissed the entire gamult of social science for not running gold-standard double blind clinical studies. (though when I think of how much those clinical studies have effects that "can be explained by any number of factors, whether known or unknown", I see that the gold standard is far from as gold as many people think it is is.) (The psychology section ended up being too long - I'm not a psychologist, so I don't have all the right facts to hand, but everything you said about psychology just is so at odds with what I have seen research psychologists do in the course of their research. Perhaps one will come and correct my comments.)
• They blinded me with science!
• Thread topic: Men, don't marry a career girl. Thread comments topic: Career girls discussing science. You just never can tell.
• TUM, here are some other options.
• .
• The article is back, with a rebuttal column next to it.
• nunia you are completely missing the target here. For me I am not arguing that social science is science, but the "science," you are describing has the same exact problems that the social sciences suffer. Popper never could escape this in his demarcation thesis, he eventually opted out at the end by saying science must make risky predictions, which isn't a criteria for many scientific theories. Now I am not trying to throw out science here, what I am trying to do is point out some very relevant problems of all "sciences." If you were to truly understand the problem with induction and to follow deduction, you would understand that the differences in our abilities in all the disciplines of science are more closely analogous to a sliding scale of believability, with no demarcation point. A great explanation is this. Say we live in a world where all we see is white swans. We would feel comfortable saying "all swans are white" but then we discover a black swan. At this point the thesis is thrown out, and we have a scientific revolution. This is just an example not a historical event. The problem here is that with in the conceptual framework of man we never know all the variables. We are limited by our perception. I don't wish to throw out our inductive processes, and give up, but we must accept these limitations. Take relativity. when Einstein and others witnessed light bending, they attributed it to his theory of relativity, but we can never know if there were not other factors working there, where light didn't actually bend, but some other factor created a situation in which we thought it bent. These same problems are more evident in the social sciences, and easier to attack, but in the long run physics and social sciences suffer from the same problem. Of course as I said this does not mean we should adopt some post modernistic clap trap of idealism, but we can say that all inductive processes in all sciences have inherent flaws. This all revolves around induction. Popper never solved that problem. I applaud his effort, but he never could properly address the issue.
• Oh glamajamma! Sorry to hear that your return key is broken!
• The funny thing is that most scientists don't need to spend a lot of time studying the philosophy of science to actually *do* science. And science still works.
• Bayesianism, dudes. Scientists may not have to spend their time thinking about how to prove causation, but it sure does help to know your methodolgy when designing your study.
• Oh, yes, methodology though is a separate issue (you're talking about experimental design?) isn't it? Maybe the reason for scientific confidence is that progress is obviously made. When you see the black swan, the statement "All swans are white" is immediately and forever falsified. When phlogiston couldn't explain the observations, phlogiston was replaced, and the critical thing is that it will never be reinstated. As we make more observations, the tree of possibilities is pruned.
• StoryBored: The funny thing is that most scientists don't need to spend a lot of time studying the philosophy of science to actually *do* science. And science still works. That needed to be repeated. We may be seeing the failure of philosophy of science, but we certainly aren't seeing the failure of science. Scientific practice has damned little to do with the philosophy of science.
• (1) Are social sciences science? If they are treated as science, or believed to be science, isn't the question moot? nunia said: The discipline [psychology] is entirely qualitative Isn't the qualitative part the methodology? Or rather isn't it methodology that's either qualitative or quantitative? And can emotions be quantified? Pete "Two Cents" Best says: No! But they can be quantified enough to wrangle shitloads of money out of television. So - yes!
• StoryBored: The funny thing is that most scientists don't need to spend a lot of time studying the philosophy of science to actually *do* science. And science still works. That needed to be repeated. We may be seeing the failure of philosophy of science, but we certainly aren't seeing the failure of science. Scientific practice has damned little to do with the philosophy of science. Actually since Hume introduced the problem of induction, he said the same exact thing, and followed, as flawed as it is, it is all we have. The point being that induction creates a clear problem with demarcating "real science" from "pseudo-science." I am not trying to throw out science, but just to illustrate that there is no authority the physical sciences have on the field, because in the end the suffer from the same core problems that the social sciences do. Social sciences suffers from more drawbacks then the hard sciences, and face more hurdles, such as ethical questions and subjectivity issues, but this doesn't make it less scientific, just harder.
• How in god's name is methodology somehow separate from proving cauastion, storeybored? That'd be really pointless study design.
• I think we should replace "scientific" with "evidence-based" - that is, lots of things aren't science, and science just wouldn't work to answer the questions we have, but they are no less evidence based. Then we can all argue about what is adequate evidence. And this thread is more interesting than talking about the article, though I'm intrigued by the studies cited in the article. It's interesting if women are less likely to be happy when their husbands make less - is that because, despite 30 years of "girls are just as good", women still want men to provide for them? Though part of me wonders, what if women who have husbands who make less than them are just in general more likely to be poor? Or perhaps stressed from working a great deal, and still having so much to do at home. Very few homes are balanced in terms of housework.
• despite 30 years of "girls are just as good", women still want men to provide for them? Oh no he didn't!!!!
• I'm confused - oh no he didn't what?
• Seems to me that most of this discussion is irrelevant. Seems to me that it doesn't matter if social science fits into one rather subjective definition of the word science or another. You can spend all day debating empiricism, right down to the argument that the author, studies, career women, and various monkeys don't even exist except as perceptions in the mind of god, but that won't get anyone anywhere. The fact is, physics will predict, with enough regularity as to be useful in practical applications, the trajectory of a thrown ball, while these studies quoted in the article will not predict the state of any one marriage. That's relevant, since the author sees fit to recommend that men not marry women with any amount of ambition based on these studies. You cannot take a hard science like physics, which makes consistently accurate predictions, and drag it down to the level of some misogynist collecting statistics which can predict nothing with any consistency, simply by saying that we may one day find evidence that refutes everything we know about physics. Physics predicts the trajectory of a thrown ball- we can't prove how it does that, and we cannot prove that the predictions will always be accurate, but that doesn't bring it down to the level of something which doesn't even make similar predictions in the first place. We've got physics, biology, psychology, geology, social sciences, astronomy, etc. They're all different, and you can group them any way you want. Nunia's trying to draw a line between the predictive ones and the non-predictive ones, call them whatever you want. That's a perfectly reasonable place to draw the line in this discussion, because the author seems to think that these studies are predictive, since he's recommending a course of action based on them. Moving the line up so far that every field of science falls onto one side is certainly accurate from the perspective of empiricism, but it's irrelevant in the context of the article. Now, carry on.
• How in god's name is methodology somehow separate from proving cauastion, storeybored? That'd be really pointless study design. You're right, M! I misread your comment.
• You cannot take a hard science like physics, which makes consistently accurate predictions, and drag it down to the level of some misogynist collecting statistics which can predict nothing with any consistency, simply by saying that we may one day find evidence that refutes everything we know about physics. Physics predicts the trajectory of a thrown ball- we can't prove how it does that, and we cannot prove that the predictions will always be accurate, but that doesn't bring it down to the level of something which doesn't even make similar predictions in the first place. 1.)This statement is one big ass contradiction! 2.)Don't drag the misogynistic article (not a study) into this and affiliate it with social science to validate your argument. 3.)"collecting statistics" is how "Physics predicts" "Now, carry on."
• My ideal mate will be ambitious, and will also know how to make a good sammich.
• MonkeyFilter: They blinded me with science! That. Is. All.
• 2.)Don't drag the misogynistic article (not a study) into this and affiliate it with social science to validate your argument. Oh, now it's misogynistic? You didn't seem to mind much earlier: I think he is just citing a bunch of studies and not indicting anyone. I don't disbelieve the studies, but I would question his liberal use of the term "more likely" which could be a 0.01% increase or a 60% increase. He doesn't clarify. I wouldn't doubt any of this though, looks like the DINKS (Double income no kids) are turning on each other. I also think that is a similar study was done for men on say, their cheating habits, this would have fallen under the radar. This is a good sign of women's liberation, a good dose of criticism. Welcome to equality. Bitter much? 3.)"collecting statistics" is how "Physics predicts" There's a difference between collecting a data point like the velocity of an object, or the charge on a particle, or the concentration of a solution, and going around asking people questions like "Your husband makes less money than you- how does that make you feel?" I am done with that path of the discussion, but let me tell you the explanation has been torn apart by modern thinkers/scientists/physicists/philosophers. I personally thought your first post in the thread was a steaming pile of shit, but you didn't lose all credibility until this line. You "cringe when every 'real scientist' puts too much faith in their science" because "the authority derived from such faith can create intellectual quagmires," but you respond with the attitude of one who has more faith in his own correctness than interest in having a real debate.
• Because "real" scientists (which apparently according to this thread is, like, physicists and maybe chemists) are accustomed to taking what they see at face value without recognizing their own knowledge and perspective influence how they interpret what they observe. Not to mention the blind faith put into statistical significance (the magic of p=0.05!) in interpreting results.
• "Your husband makes less money than you- how does that make you feel?" That's not what all social "scientists" [for the sake of those who would "be offended"—quotes!] ask. You are harping on analytical psychology, a very small and undeserving part of the social sciences. Heisenberg said it best when he said, "I can drive." The problem with social sciences is that they are embryonic. The "shoulders of giants" haven't grown tall enough yet to establish the plethora of research that will give Albert Durkheim the vision to see in the same manner as those who perform those "full mast" sciences. Eat it you meme swallowing eukaryotes. Stuff it up your taxonomy.
• SCIENCE!!
• Frankly, I'm blinded by all the damn science around here ...
• Science! Science I say! (requires Flash) I figured everyone could use a Homestar Runner break. *clears throat* Having started with biology and transitioned into anthropology, with its various subdisciplines of anthropological archaeology, biological (aka physical) anthropology, and sociocultural anthropology, I've never had a problem with differences between the "hard" sciences (physics being the usual example) and the "soft" sciences (anthro and/or sociology usually trotted out). Of course, many folks only think of anthro as sociocultural, ignoring all the observation and "hard" science in archaeology and physical. Heck, a lot of colleges lump it in with sociology. Now, I think it's clear that the "soft" sciences aren't as quantifiable as the "hard" sciences, however, the good research that comes out of "soft" sciences comes from the aspirations born of the scientific method and the 'natural philosophers' we had before all this formalization of scientific fields in any case. And heck, I know experimental physicists often get snippy with theoretial physicists because the latter aren't testing the 'real world' like former. Personally, as a USian seeing the climate against science in ye olde country, I'd prefer to have science and scientific attitudes championed rather than waylaid by semantic elitists. Not that I don't mind some good discussion about the true definition of science, mind you. This thread, now that I'm coming across it, is a nice read. Now for the column that started the thread, I find it to be glib and superficial and too much like too many columns that throw stats in your face, shotgun-style, hoping their argument will stick. At best the guy is overly enamored with stats, without presenting the potential subtleties. At worst, he's just throwing out something for shock value. Worst of all, an implicit attitude that marriage, once entered into, is a fait accompli. Your course is set, and should your coupling choice have fallen into the wrong end of our dataset, you are doomed, DOOMED I say! Far more entertaining, and practical, was the colleage's rebuttal, which was both comic, and closer to reality--leastways I'm sure we can confirm this: marriages are relationships that can change over time, and unhappiness and divorce may occur when--ooh, wait for it--communication breaks down and/or beliefs and expectations of the couple diverge to an unacceptable degree. Yeah, none of her column quotes studies. It's all anecdotal. But which column sounds like they've deposited their reality check? My money's with the gal who mentions that talking to one's spouse may be a factor in marriage strength. Statistic boy doesn't seem to have added that to his equation. Methinks one of these folks needs to step outside the lab.
• Agreed on both counts, BG, but "I" prefer "full mast" and "half mast" as terms when "talking" about "sciences." "Anyways," so that I can get back "on" topic: In regards to that anecdotal evidence: when you use throw some statistical studies around without context (as has been noted in many different forms here) you do worse than spewing out what happened to your best-friend's husband's lover's dog's walker's great aunt's brother-in-law. By the way, your best-friend's husband is cheating on her. After all, he works in a place with available females.
• Dude, your best-friend's husband's lover's dog walker's great-aunt's brother-in-law SUCKS.
• Thomas? *sniff* But he was so nice at the Christmas party . . MonkeyFilter: Eat it you meme swallowing eukaryotes. *puts on "I <3 mandyman" T-shirt, waves pennant*
• mandyman and InsolentChimp- You need to go back and read my posts. Both of them. I'm not commenting on soft sciences in general, or social sciences, or half-mast sciences or whatever you want to defend. I mention nothing but the "studies" in the article, which jamma has seen fit to defend by lumping them together with the (perfectly respectable) soft sciences, and then equating them all with the hard sciences (or whatever you want to call them). I'm not "harping on analytical psychology." I don't think you should group these "studies" with that or any other field. If you must categorize them, then put them in a group with the ones that BearGuy alludes to- ones that deny evolution or global warming, and everything else that manipulates statistics to push some bullshit agenda. That's not science- that's propaganda. Again, I'm not trying to bash any field of science. My issue is with these particular crap surveys being presented as something they're not (and also with jamma's fucking retarded line of "reasoning"). Analytical psychology (or any other non-physical field of science) done well is perfectly fine and respectable in my book. These particular studies don't make the cut.
• I think we are talking about different things, smallish bear. Just to be clear, I'm not a social scientist, I'm an epidemiologist (in training!) and my focus is occupational/environmental exposures. I am not attempting to defend psychology or sociology--I know little about their actual research methods. I have no idea what the original publications for that Forbes article look like, but I'm sure I could go through and point out sources of bias (picking things apart is always easier than coming up with a fool-proof study design) and I wouldn't be surprised if the guy who wrote the Forbes article was totally misinterpreting the information as he is clearly writing it from a "how does this affect men" perspective rather than looking at the whole marriage. My point in all of this discussion is that the notion of hard sciences containing some form of objective truth ignores the fact that we humans came up with it in the first place and it changes over time as our understanding of the world evolves and this notion of repeatability and randomized control experiments, while obviously useful, should not be taken as unquestionable proof and should not be taken as the only way to test causation.
• I'm an epidemiologist (in training!) Say, mandyman, I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at this rash on my inner thigh...
• this notion of repeatability and randomized control experiments, while obviously useful, should not be taken as unquestionable proof and should not be taken as the only way to test causation What are some other ways of testing causation?
• Cohort studies are something many epidemologists had the time and the money to carry out, but I'm guessing you're not really interested in a lecture on the study designs of epidemiology. The point of all of these things is to get at what we can't know--would we see the same result if we could revrse time and remove what we think is the cause? Randomized control experiements are one way of getting at that and work great if you can assume that the two groups you are starting with are identical, something that is not as easy to do with living things.
• (insert "wish" after "epidemiologist")
• All you people freak me out sometimes.
• BOO!
• Just don't switch from anthropology to mineralogy at the graduate level, or you'll piss off Johnny Longbone.
• Hey hey!
• smallish bear I personally thought your first post in the thread was a steaming pile of shit, I think Newton said that to Lebniz when he was making his argument for absolute space. N: "Your relational space is a steaming pile of shit!" L: "Thats all ya got?" N: "Thats all I need Leib-bitch!" L: "....." I was going to respond to your post but you are apparently in over your head, and are mad at me because of it. Sorry about that!
• glama, we are all in over our head and mad at you because you are so much smarter that us. Can you please repeat your recent reading list again? It was so impressive. I could never imagine being that intellectual, and hope to be more like you when I grow up.
• you are apparently in over your head LOL @ teh glama. *biggish hug for smallishbear*
• Well, jeeze, if you would detail why he is in over his head, with details that we poles can understand, we might give you some credut. Have you even thought that you might just be a little too sure of your own opinion?
• Ladies! Do NOT mock the glama! He IS the science.
• Cohort studies are something many epidemologists had the time and the money to carry out.. Epidemology, i don't know much about it...but that is teh cool.
• Sorry I shouldn't profess any authority in anything, I forget to remind myself of the nature of the pop cultured. I will return to my readings.
• I think you are a bit out of line there, glamajama, we've got a lot of very educated monkeys here, I don't think you have any cause to get on a high horse...
• Speaking of pop cultured, this all brings to mind a description I once made of the movie The Matrix -- the cinematic equivalent of some of the name-dropping in the thread. "Blah blah Wittgenstein, blah blah Derrida, and Baudrillard this and deconstruct that, and Lacan blah blah, Desert Of The Real blah blah blah." Almost like pop philosophy, but more like cod philosophy.
• Lest anyone think I was pointing that at anyone else, I was pointing it at the most likely pointee. There's monkeys 'round these parts whose mid-morning yawn ruminations would blow your under-pop-cultured noggin, pointee.
• My point in all of this discussion is that the notion of hard sciences containing some form of objective truth ignores the fact that we humans came up with it in the first place and it changes over time as our understanding of the world evolves and this notion of repeatability and randomized control experiments, while obviously useful, should not be taken as unquestionable proof and should not be taken as the only way to test causation. This is what I was attempting to say earlier (through quote) as well, sb. As I didn't connect your previous comments with the short about "How does this make you feel?" I assumed you were lumping bullshit surveys in with the pursuit of social science. The survey method is not one that is commonly respected in social science methodology. It's like a Rorshach: painfully without relevance or context. I'm no expert when it comes to social research methodology (only having been exposed to one methods class thus far) but it appeared that you were slighting shoddy research and pegging it on social sciences when, in fact, it befalls both acadamies at a more feverish pace than outstanding research. I hope you recieve all the lemonade you could wish for.
• Just to add: I happen to ride on both schools of science with all their strengths and weaknesses—and the devil's in the details of the interpretations in any case it would seem.
• Hee hee, chimaera, Blah blah Wittgenstein, blah blah Derrida, and Baudrillard this and deconstruct that, and Lacan blah blah, Desert Of The Real blah blah blah is the best description I've heard yet of the matrix movies.
• For someone like me, who works with issues of the use of science at law, the dynamics of these kinds of debates just reinforce how limited is the ability of the judiciary to address these kinds of issues. Not that it was my intention to stir things up to the extent they were stirred, I hasten to add.
• Epidemiology is a great example. Most would not question calling it a "science", but it cannot make predictions like physics or chemistry - it generally talks about likelyhoods (actually, I would say it bordered between science and social science, in a a very fertile, productive intellectual place, but I used to work at an epidemiology unit which had psychology, sociology, classic epidemiology and clinical medicine research all working in tandem). Biology is similar - you can't simply predict environmental sucession or the life cycle of a plant like a bouncing ball, but would you say that biology isn't science? The thing is, these generally work with the physical world (with a strong note that epidemiology can be just as involved in psycological well-being, etc), and that's why we call them science. But it's a far fuzzier line than some in this thread would suggest, and there are plenty of widely accepted "sciences" that show exactly the characteristics that some people in the thread claims make them not science. There are much better ways to differentiate. Science, for instance, believes in universal phenomenon. The evironmental predictors for being affected by a disease may only be a statistical probablility, but it is assumed that they will affect all people. Psychology also has this assumption, though it will take culture into account as part of the evironment (as will epidemiology, of course). Whereas, much of social science is interested in the differences between people. How does culture change the way they look at the world? There is less emphasis on a universalising principles and more on evidential methods of looking at the differences between people. History is all about contrasting and comparing the development of different people and cultures - the subtle differences are the meat of the study. --------------- But aside from that, the original question stands - why do people question the validity of social science the way they don't question the validity of science?
• One reason: Social scientists try to study hugely complex phenonema with lack of controls and variable subjects. This leads to less than adequate experimental design. In psychology/sociology the use of polls for example makes findings instantly more tentative than the findings of physical science. The latest field of hedonic psychology seems to be entirely based on polls of how people "feel", but there is currently no other way around it. But given the choice though i would rather have a hint of new knowledge than to leave the area unexplored altogether.
• Polls and surveys are also heavily used in epidemiology - and sometimes with much less control.
• One reason: Social scientists try to study hugely complex phenonema with lack of controls and variable subjects. What do you base this statement on, StoryBored? In my experience, that's what you are told not to do in social research methodology. You focus on one thing, for example: Married men soliciting prostitutes in London, Ontario between August and October, 2003 represented by work, wages, and age. The controls are the context; in this case, two big ones are time and location. That the subjects are the variable of the research is kind of a given—a necessity in a research experiment. If you want to tell me that it's much more complex than that, that's fine. I feel the same way about biology and theoretical physics. But research is research. And you could say social research is flawed, much like scientific research. But neither are approached idiotically as an institution. It's some gross misrepresentation in the pop media that slights one or the other, it would seem. But, in defense of the social half: Hedonic Psychology is a very poor candidate for the gestalt of social science.
• You can't control people, but you can do surveys that are large enough to add controls into the analysis. I used to work for a research unit which would analyse government health surveys (10,000s of respondants). They could control for age, location, that sort of thing to look at something like the effect of gender on the provision of health care. They were fully aware of the limitations, but also very conservative in their research. When the media gets a hold of this sort of thing, the reporters can go a bit crazy, but they also do that with physical science. Actually, I think I like the term physical science. Physcial science and social science make a good pair.
• (I mean conservative in the sense of only reporting effects which were statistically significant, which they would know from a comparison of the sample with the statistical universe, usually the population of Canada or Ontario or something. So you have to have a very big sample to look at small effects.)
• >> One reason: Social scientists try to study hugely complex phenonema with lack of controls and variable subjects. What do you base this statement on, StoryBored? Oof, poor wording on my part! Sorry about that. What I meant was *some* social science is like this. And I think we're not too far apart here, IC & jb. The stuff that gets the most attention in the media is often the stuff that's least rigorous (e.g. like the FPP article). That might be where the lower opinion of social sciences comes from (a guilt by association propagated by a headline-obsessed press).
• Another reason for the lower standing of social science, is that it's still not at a point where it can help us with some crucial questions. One example: Does mandatory sentencing reduce crime rates? To their credit sociologists have tackled this but the results are not surprisingly inconclusive. For each study that says no, there's likely another that says yes. The fundamental reason for this is that sociologists can't isolate the variables. In theoretical physics, the important questions can often be answered with much greater clarity (e.g. the Michelson-Morley experiment).
• Perhaps theorectical physics isn't the best example. The theorectical physicist I know just keeps talking about how much they don't know, and how much is still in the air. Also, I know epidemiology still doesn't know so many seemingly (but not actually) simple things, like what the real relationship between diet and cancer is. Thing is, some things can be answered, some cannot. People are extremely complex system - more complex than any I can think of in nature. And the study of people is in its infancy. But there are things we can still know - I don't actually dispute the studies that the original article cites, because I can't from just one citation. What was their methodology? What were their questions? But the questions they ask intrigue me - I want to go look at the studies. (Though I probably won't, because I am both very busy and lazy).
• I know epidemiology still doesn't know so many seemingly (but not actually) simple things, like what the real relationship between diet and cancer is. But do they know the relationship between the worms and the spice? Okay, I'll stop now.
• MonkeyFilter: Do they know the relationship between the worms and the spice?
• Touche
• All you need to know about science (as a total non-scientist I just wanted to say that this thread is brilliant)
• *checks box for "does not think this thread is brilliant" next to mothninja's name*