Social science
SnowdropExplodes, 22 Oct 2005 15:01:05
--- Amelie wrote:
> objective research is not the only way forward in
> social science. It is a
> male-brain comfort - always follows established
> rules - like a computer -
> but is decreasingly useful as real live people do
> not function that way.
> Increasingly there is room for subjective analysis,
> anecdote, crosslinkages
> and inspiration - the difference between science and
> art, left brain and
> right - and we need both for understanding and
> creative solutions.
The difficulty (and the reason why Karl Popper would
refuse to acknowledge social sciences as true
sciences) is that human interraction is too massively
complex for it to be possible to say with any
certainty that stimulus 'A' will always produce result
'X', which makes any experiment unrepeatable and any
theory unfalsifiable in Popperian terms.
It seems to me that anecdotal evidence is a weak form
of evidence: it shows you what is possible (in a field
where most things are) but not what is probable or to
be expected. It says what can happen, but not how
often, and thereby forms at most a single datum.
I may be wrong, but I am also suspicious of the term
"subjective analysis" because that sounds to me too
much like "projecting the researcher's opinions onto
the data". If one admits such a role, then after the
observer, one must have a further observer (a
meta-observer?) outside, whose role is simply to
observe the effect of the results on the observer and
to compensate for the consequent effects of the
observer on the results.
As a further point, I find this distinction between
science and art to be a false dichotomy, and quite
offensive, especially when coupled with the early
assertion of "It's a male-brain comfort" - which is a
dismissive and sexist remark.
The great advances in science have all been the
results of leaps of inspiration, of seeing
"crosslinkages" and of "creative solutions".
However, in each case the inspiration is backed up by
hard, objective evidence, both pre-existing and later
observations.
As has been ably demonstrated on this list, social
sciences have a huge subjective element from the
outset, in that the chosen method of research can have
huge effects on the outcome. This is why it must be
even more rigorous in its efforts to reduce the
subjective element in research and render the
observations as objective as possible. Otherwise the
results can only show what the researcher wants them
to show.
Ultimately, good science is careful, rigorous science,
regardless of its field.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
Amelie, 22 Oct 2005 18:41:49
yes, I realised the Male-brain comment was not tactful as soon as I made it.
But I could not resist it, tongue-in-cheek and no offence intended. We
could debate the rest for hours, but the thoughts are all valuable as I
gestate my real contributions to the shared purpose. Amelie
----- Original Message -----
"-OJT-" , 22 Oct 2005 18:41:49
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 3:00 PM
> --- Amelie wrote:
>
>> objective research is not the only way forward in
>> social science. It is a
>> male-brain comfort - always follows established
>> rules - like a computer -
>> but is decreasingly useful as real live people do
>> not function that way.
>> Increasingly there is room for subjective analysis,
>> anecdote, crosslinkages
>> and inspiration - the difference between science and
>> art, left brain and
>> right - and we need both for understanding and
>> creative solutions.
>
> The difficulty (and the reason why Karl Popper would
> refuse to acknowledge social sciences as true
> sciences) is that human interraction is too massively
> complex for it to be possible to say with any
> certainty that stimulus 'A' will always produce result
> 'X', which makes any experiment unrepeatable and any
> theory unfalsifiable in Popperian terms.
>
> It seems to me that anecdotal evidence is a weak form
> of evidence: it shows you what is possible (in a field
> where most things are) but not what is probable or to
> be expected. It says what can happen, but not how
> often, and thereby forms at most a single datum.
>
> I may be wrong, but I am also suspicious of the term
> "subjective analysis" because that sounds to me too
> much like "projecting the researcher's opinions onto
> the data". If one admits such a role, then after the
> observer, one must have a further observer (a
> meta-observer?) outside, whose role is simply to
> observe the effect of the results on the observer and
> to compensate for the consequent effects of the
> observer on the results.
>
> As a further point, I find this distinction between
> science and art to be a false dichotomy, and quite
> offensive, especially when coupled with the early
> assertion of "It's a male-brain comfort" - which is a
> dismissive and sexist remark.
>
> The great advances in science have all been the
> results of leaps of inspiration, of seeing
> "crosslinkages" and of "creative solutions".
> However, in each case the inspiration is backed up by
> hard, objective evidence, both pre-existing and later
> observations.
>
> As has been ably demonstrated on this list, social
> sciences have a huge subjective element from the
> outset, in that the chosen method of research can have
> huge effects on the outcome. This is why it must be
> even more rigorous in its efforts to reduce the
> subjective element in research and render the
> observations as objective as possible. Otherwise the
> results can only show what the researcher wants them
> to show.
>
> Ultimately, good science is careful, rigorous science,
> regardless of its field.
>
> Ta,
> SnowdropExplodes
>
>
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new
> Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2113
>
>
Paul C. Dickie, 22 Oct 2005 20:01:57
In message <002d01c5d72f$b4c8f230$6601a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie osynthesis.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>yes, I realised the Male-brain comment was not tactful as soon as I made it.
>But I could not resist it, tongue-in-cheek and no offence intended.
But why should any offence be caused by a lady acknowledging that male
brains tend to be somewhat larger than female brains?
>We could debate the rest for hours, but the thoughts are all
>valuable as I gestate my real contributions to the shared purpose.
^^^^^^^^^
I'm sure we can't wait as long as nine months... o-)
As for whether or not 'social studies' deserve to be called a *science*,
I am quite sure they do not. Most sociologists have little or no notion
of effective experimental design, let alone much understanding of non-
parametric statistics, so it is scarcely amazing when their 'results'
are found to be irreproducible and may even turn out to be unreliable or
invalid.
What might be of more interest would be to find out if there has been
any research on the expression of genes in the human genome coding for
endorphin release, as that might have some bearing on whether or not
some forms of masochism are learned or innate.
--
< Paul >
SnowdropExplodes, 22 Oct 2005 20:40:50
--- "Paul C. Dickie"
wrote:
> As for whether or not 'social studies' deserve to be
> called a *science*,
> I am quite sure they do not. Most sociologists have
> little or no notion
> of effective experimental design, let alone much
> understanding of non-
> parametric statistics, so it is scarcely amazing
> when their 'results'
> are found to be irreproducible and may even turn out
> to be unreliable or
> invalid.
Ah, the old alchemy argument.
Just because science is conducted poorly, that does
not negate its status as science.
There is good science being conducted in the social
sciences, and when it is, we do learn things. We
even learn things from the bad science that is done,
but usually not the things that the researchers claim
to have learned.
The philosophy of science is a fascinating area of
study, but it is not the purpose of this group so I
will say no more on the subject for now.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos http://uk.photos.yahoo.com
Amelie, 22 Oct 2005 23:17:09
Human Genome: I could be wrong, but I believe it will be three more years
before even the basic haplotypes are all mapped and years more before
specific chemical reactions are attributed, although some of the more
pressing possibilites are being investigated.
Amelie
----- Original Message -----
"Paul C. Dickie"
, 22 Oct 2005 23:17:09
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 8:00 PM
> In message <002d01c5d72f$b4c8f230$6601a8c0@Sylvia>, Amelie > osynthesis.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>>yes, I realised the Male-brain comment was not tactful as soon as I made
>>it.
>>But I could not resist it, tongue-in-cheek and no offence intended.
>
> But why should any offence be caused by a lady acknowledging that male
> brains tend to be somewhat larger than female brains?
>
>>We could debate the rest for hours, but the thoughts are all
>>valuable as I gestate my real contributions to the shared purpose.
> ^^^^^^^^^
> I'm sure we can't wait as long as nine months... o-)
>
> As for whether or not 'social studies' deserve to be called a *science*,
> I am quite sure they do not. Most sociologists have little or no notion
> of effective experimental design, let alone much understanding of non-
> parametric statistics, so it is scarcely amazing when their 'results'
> are found to be irreproducible and may even turn out to be unreliable or
> invalid.
>
> What might be of more interest would be to find out if there has been
> any research on the expression of genes in the human genome coding for
> endorphin release, as that might have some bearing on whether or not
> some forms of masochism are learned or innate.
>
> --
> < Paul >
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2121
>
>