Define science. It really has nothing to due with the topic of study.
Well, yes and no and maybe.
I think of science as a method to explore the world and as a standardized framework of knowledge. However, some things are difficult, if not impossible, to study scientifically. Some things can be studied scientifically, but the results are not particularly useful.
Polly_mer, my guess is that we are probably in near agreement on what constitutes as science. To me, what defines science relative to other endeavors is that samples are representative, known and unknown biases are controlled, and that results are replicable. In other words, science is based upon systematic observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation. Based on this conception science is agnostic to the topic under study.
This conception has nothing to do with payoff or the age of a field. Clearly some areas of scientific investigation have greater payoff than others. For example, compare chemistry to psychology. Areas in psychology have made solid contributions to our knowledge base, but relative to chemistry the contribution is small. Differences in productivity does not make one field a science and the other not.
Many of the social sciences, particularly for the qualitative fields, use a standardized, logical, repeatable method, but the results are inapplicable to similar situations and cannot be made into a predictive model. In addition, because the underlying parameters change, the results aren't even necessarily applicable to the current version of the same population.
Are the physical sciences as causally deterministic as some would believe? Are there not phenomena where inconsistent results occur? I agree that the social sciences are troubled in regards to consistency of results that allow for robust predictive models. However, aren't there circumstances in which a chemist leaves the lab and finds that the consistent results previously observed are not so consistent in an uncontrolled environment? It seems that regardless of field the answers to the question of whether the findings approximate reality are more often than not tentative.
In the social sciences, and this gets to the credibility issue of social sciences, the error, or level of uncertainty, is much higher than the physical sciences. For example, the error associated with measuring a human perception results in variable findings. As a consequence to high levels of uncertainty "scientists" are able to push the way they would like the world to be, rather than attempting to objectively approximate reality. This allows social "scientists" to represent their highly politicized observations as facts. This issue is what will result, if it has not already to a degree, in social sciences having little to contribute to our collective knowledge.
Is that science? Well, maybe. However, it's not at all the same as chemistry where mixing an acid and a base will give the same results, repeatably, regardless of who does the mixing or the exact details of the mixing process.
Will the results be exactly the same? What if third variables that have an impact on the reaction are present? What if your instrumentation is insensitive to differences in effects? Superficially, it may appear that the mixing of an acid and a base has a perfectly predictable effect. However, what if the expected relationship were not present or were present to a varying degree? A chemist would most likely attempt to identify why it did not occur or differed in magnitude. This is exactly what good social scientists do when an relationship that is known to be reliable does not occur. Take for example the relationship between economic status and health outcomes. There are subgroups in populations whose health outcomes are over- and unpredicted by predictive models, of which some have been identified and some have not. This is a perfect opportunity for scientists to identify what third variables moderate the relationship between economics and health, no?
Are social sciences valuable? Yes.
Should people use the best tools available even if those tools give imperfect results? Yes.
Should we change the way we teach physical science because social science is different? Nope.
Agreed!! I came in late on the conversation so do not know the entire context. If someone was arguing the physical sciences should shift epistemologically to what is popular in social sciences, I disagree completely. I like going home and having my lights turn on.
Social science studies of how people learn can give us good information on how to teach physical science and we should use that information to make improvements in teaching methods. However, we should not mistake of saying that anyone who claims to be a scientist means exactly the same thing by science as other people who also use the name scientist. I won't even discuss the people who have no idea what it means to be a scientist, but use the term because it sounds impressive.
Yes, I agree. But aren't there charlatans in the physical sciences? Think cold fusion and the recent human cloning scandal in Korea. The social sciences are troubled, but do not have a monopoly on silliness.
Or, more importantly aren't there areas were the knowledge base is inconclusive in your area of study? These inclusive areas are often waiting for technology to catch up so that they can be investigated appropriately. Social sciences are in a similar bind, only the current technologies are quite primitive relative to other fields of study.
