posted
I've always had a problem with "sociology proofs"; or in other words, declaring findings in the field of sociology as "the truth". In a typical experiment the ideal is to keep as many things constant at one time as possible. Ideally running many tests changing only one independent variable (for instance, measuring the volume of a vapor when only temperature changes, pressure, mass, container-surface, gravity, etc... remain the same). It is nearly impossible to do that in the simplest of experiments. As an example of complexity, if you have a four-arm pendulum that you start off at a literally identical position every time you "run" it (let it do its thing), in less that 2 minutes the presence of a rain drop a mile away will make its self visible to your eye in the changes in the way the pendulum acts (because of its gravity). It's simply impossible to keep the surroundings constant enough. And fighting against those tremendous odds, scientists have worked for centuries to produce a workable theory of the universe that's complete enough to allow for computers and penicillin and trips to the moon. It's amazing, but all those things came about within the last 100 years, and they all occur in fields where, though vast variation is possible, are almost infinitely more controllable than the human factor of sociology. The number of things that remain inconstant, the problems of measuring (if you want to see if penicillin works, the results wont be to hard to understand if you did your experiment right, less people being sick, but how do you tell if people are happy?) I don't think that we should abandon sociology as a field, nor anything else as drastic as that, I just can never believe a person whose conclusions are based on the assumption that sociology can proof something one way or another.
Do others feel this way? Certainly I can have a limited amount of faith in limited conclusions (some phenomena are robust enough to truly be observable even in the midst of vast variation) but those conclusions rarely shine any light where none was before. In general, I find myself skeptical of anything that doesn't already line-up with the way I understand human nature (because I'm skeptical of the ability to produce such conclusions based on current knowledge and skill) and so the power of sociological research in my world-view is almost nil.
posted
I believe it was in his book Collapse that Jared Diamond gave a pretty good explanation of how they are able to use the scientific method to study things that are not controllable or directly isolatable. He talks about how they look for "natural experiments" to observe how one variable will affect things.
I don't think I was entirely convinced by his arguments, but I was more convinced than before that the "soft sciences" really can be scientific.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is a "soft science", where they try to be as scientific as possible while realizing that some things cannot in good faith be used to conduct true research. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My subtitle was poorly worded I think, I didn't mean to say that sociologists aren't scientists; I think they're doing a splendid job (in general anyways) applying the scientific method to a field that so squirlish when it comes to real examination; it was my attempt to give a brief description of the nature of the thread.
quote:I believe it was in his book Collapse that Jared Diamond gave a pretty good explanation of how they are able to use the scientific method to study things that are not controllable or directly isolatable. He talks about how they look for "natural experiments" to observe how one variable will affect things.
I think you can use it, but I just don't believe that the results are at all conclusive. They can be suggestive and certainly meet the qualification of helpful, but to me, it just can't be conclusive.
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes: They can be suggestive and certainly meet the qualification of helpful, but to me, it just can't be conclusive.
Are the hard sciences ever conclusive?
I'd say the conclusions of hard science experiments are much more strongly suggestive -- and come closer to conclusive -- but I wouldn't give 'em that title, either.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fair point, but I guess my use of conlusive was to mean, I could base future actions on the studie's outcomes. For instance, I'm comfortable basing future choices on the idea that systems always do increase in entropy; that's what I meant by conclusive. But you're right, that's a bad (i.e. wrong) usage of the word.
quote:I think you can use it, but I just don't believe that the results are at all conclusive. They can be suggestive and certainly meet the qualification of helpful, but to me, it just can't be conclusive.
What precisely do you mean by "conclusive"? Do you mean that it describes absolute truth? In my opinion, that's outside the purvue of the scientific method, whether you're in the hard or the soft sciences.
---
"Every single time we've dropped something, sir, it appeared to accelerate toward the earth at 9.81 meters per second squared."
"That's all well and good, but your experiments can't really be called conclusive, can they?"
"Perhaps not sir, but using the assumption that the cannon balls would accelerate at that rate, we were able to sink an enemy ship in the harbor."
"Really? Well, very good. Carry on, soldier."
---
Whether or not they can be conclusive, I certainly think that the soft science can be useful.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, I think we have to base future actions at least in part on the outcomes of well-designed studies in the soft sciences. It's either that or guesswork.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see that CT voiced the same opinion while I was playing soldier in my mind.
I think that the soft sciences can be used to develop theories with positive predictive value. True, they've also had (and no doubt still do have) many theories which are flawed or downright wrong. But then, the same thing can be said of the physical sciences.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, mr_porteiro_head, it is likely that I am more prone to speak quickly without thinking through more thoroughly. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even as someone who loves the soft sciences, I do have to admit that there are unique challenges working in those fields. Unless you want to be the next Mengala, some things cannot be done in a proper scientific manner, so you have to accept less than perfect studies to prove your points. Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sociology is just a science that tries to make sense of incredibly complicated human social structures. It knows going in that it's tackling concepts which are difficult to measure and quantify and proof, but that's part of what makes it so exciting. It's a real challenge, and the concepts and the paradigms it generates are incredibly useful in analyzing human structures, concepts, and conditions.
quote: I just can never believe a person whose conclusions are based on the assumption that sociology can proof something one way or another.
If psychology can help proof things such as personality disorders (it can), sociology can help proof things such as game theory and proximal processes.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: Well, mr_porteiro_head, it is likely that I am more prone to speak quickly without thinking through more thoroughly.
I see no evidence in this thread for that assertion, at least in comparison to me. Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Hard Science attempts to use the simplest language to describe the most difficult of ideas.
The softer the science, the more it tries to emulate the hard sciences, the larger the words it creates/uses in order to sound scientific.
I took the first chapter of one of my "Political Science" books (which is as soft, compared to Sociology, as Sociology is to Particle Physics) and translated into 3 paragraphs of normal English.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: The softer the science, the more it tries to emulate the hard sciences, the larger the words it creates/uses in order to sound scientific.
I took the first chapter of one of my "Political Science" books (which is as soft, compared to Sociology, as Sociology is to Particle Physics) and translated into 3 paragraphs of normal English.
Alternatively, the concepts described are often more complex. [I don't agree with you that the hard sciences are necessarily dealing with the most difficult concepts -- and when they do, such as with very abstract concepts, I'd argue that the language is noticeably less straightforward because the concepts are less straightforward.]
Sometimes one can translate academic gobbledygook into something tight and concise that does not lose any nuance in translation. Often, though, critical points are missed which may be subtle enough to miss easily on an early read.
---
Edited to add: To people who aren't trained very far into a particular discipline (e.g., up through a Master's level), this can seem like just an exercise in arbitrariness. It looks (and sometimes is, unfortunately!) like there really is no difference, no meaning, in choosing those complicated and seemingly nit-picking words. It can look like magnetic poetry, just with academic gobbledygook all thrown together.
However, there are some external constraints that belie that this is all that is going on. Rather like developing a palate for wine, people who have really gone to the boards for the hard-earned experience tend to agree on what is good, and they tend to be able to make distinctions between gradations that those less familiar cannot see (and they tend to agree on those gradations, too).
Mind you, there are a lot of people who think they know something or pretend to know something, and that may be completely divorced from reality. I think both wine snob dinner parties and academic departments across the world are filled with excellent examples. However, the lack of ability of many who profess to know does not mean that there really isn't something there to know -- or that the nuanced language isn't really reflective of subtle but important, complex distinctions.
It just means that a lot of people aren't as good as they think they are. *grin
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: Study the Text Books.
Hard Science attempts to use the simplest language to describe the most difficult of ideas.
The softer the science, the more it tries to emulate the hard sciences, the larger the words it creates/uses in order to sound scientific.
I took the first chapter of one of my "Political Science" books (which is as soft, compared to Sociology, as Sociology is to Particle Physics) and translated into 3 paragraphs of normal English.
Hmmm, I'd've said that political science is far "harder" of a social science than sociology is. Maybe it's because the type of poli sci I run into as an economist - voting theory, game theory, political economy, policy analysis, and the like - are all quite strict in their modeling. Also, poli sci has far better data and can repeat experiments much more easily than sociology. Try checking out some of the papers at NBER (search using the term "politics") to see some high-leveled, disciplined research being done about the political arena.
I think the worst use of high-falutin' language comes from the humanities, really. As a philosophy major I recognize that some specific vocabulary really is required to adequately express ideas, but I have my doubts concerning the language of, say, literary theory.
I also think that within field-specific vocabulary, educated adults are far more likely to know and understand scientific terms than the those of the social sciences and humanities. It might just seem that the sciences are explaining things in the "simplest language possible" because you've already incorporated much of their language into your personal dictionary via high school science classes.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"As a philosophy major I recognize that some specific vocabulary really is required to adequately express ideas, but I have my doubts concerning the language of, say, literary theory."
i did too, until I dated a literary theoriest.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Counter: I'm married to an English major who loves literary theory (although it'd be going way too far to call him a literary theorist). I still think about 80-90% of it is bull. I also strongly dislike most Continental philosophy, for similar reasons.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What happened tome was that I discovered some of the subtle gradations that she was trying to get across were best communicated through academic language Not all, perhaps, but then... i never understood all of what she was trying to explain.
Interestingly, her other love is continental philosophy, and I found the same thing there.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Any field of science is concerned with defining the scope of its investigations. Where does biology cease to be biology and become chemistry? Where does chemistry merge with physics? I think a lot of what is going on with soft sciences is that it isn't really obvious what the scope of the field is to an observing.
I was forever mixing up molecular biology with micro biology, which my sister and sister-in-law were very understanding about. I still don't know which one studied which. I think that might be part of what is going on with sociology and psychology.
I do know that one of the seminal sociologic studies was looking at who actually commits suicide, and how much the answers went against most people's biases. In sociology, you can look at data and "know" such and such is happening, because it is in the numbers. But knowing why is another matter, and I think that's where people give them crap.
People don't do a lot of studies of the obvious, in any science, and those are the things we understand well. I think that any science will have items on the boundary that have weird explanations being tossed around.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that if you only base conclusions on things that have actually been proven true, then you probably won't be making many useful conclusions in your life.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the other hand, if you base conclusions on facts, then you'll probably make a lot more useful conclusions in your life then if you base conclusions on fancy.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think that if you only base conclusions on things that have actually been proven true, then you probably won't be making many useful conclusions in your life.
The danger in this is that we tend to prefer our initial conclusions. It is much more difficult to accept new evidence that contradicts our existing conclusions than to accept new evidence that confirms them.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly if you want to pick on something, I'd go with the fMRI studies that seem to be the in thing right now.
We'll show you some pictures and look at the blood flow in your brain an then claim things from the correlation. I realize that the claims made by the media are almost never the claims made in the actual paper, but I still don't see the value in most of that work.
Posts: 1621 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
