Examining the Practicality and Validity of Social Sciences

  • Thread starter Ashera
  • Start date
OK, I guess, if you want to get a job in a large corporation. Personally, I wouldn't go to business school... I would study economics. But that's just me. In summary, the usefulness of social sciences depends on the problem at hand. Some consider social sciences as tools, while others may see them as a means of generating income. However, the pursuit of knowledge in any field is valuable in of itself.
  • #36
saminator910 said:
So according to him, "science is the study of the behavior of nature". I can see how economics can be considered a science, as others have stated. Humans are elements of nature, and much of economics involves studying the interactions between people. But by that definition it is also hard to disqualify something as science, because humans did arise naturally, and I would consider them a part of nature.

I think economics is a practical science like computer and exercise science or rocket science. It's studying how to do something better and not the underlying basics of a natural phenomenon.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
Science is about the established rules of empirical, stable, and demonstrable protocol. Social sciences may not be considered science because they are not stable i.e. repeatable experiments that yield same results, but social sciences are useful nonetheless.

For example there is no single all-encompassing definition of the Hawthorne Effect but the experiment provides useful insights. Likewise, management theories such as Theory X Theory Y and MBO maybe has no experimental basis but they provide useful insights too.

Social scientists maybe "physics envy" i.e. the desire to obtain all possible data but considering ethics they can't. The nature vs nurture study was locked in Yale University until 2066, the experiments of Harry[/PLAIN] [Broken] Harlow somehow caused the emergence of animal's right movement in America. Just a couple of example of what happen when ethics is considered in social science investigations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
Romulo Binuya said:
Science is about the established rules of empirical, stable, and demonstrable protocol. Social sciences may not be considered science because they are not stable i.e. repeatable experiments that yield same results

Not necessarily, many things aren't possible to repeat in a lab setting on demand. The formation of a star for instance. Instead we really on models which we construct from observation and smaller scale experiments. We can then use these models to create predictions and test those predictions by looking at the relevant phenomena in nature.

Social sciences are sciences in the sense that they are all about observation, model building and testing of those models. Hell most social science papers use more rigorous statistical analysis than most fields of biology.
 
  • #39
Honestly, I think the reason some people don't consider fields such as economics and other related fields to be science is because they don't fit with other more popular preferences on what is a science. When most people think of a scientist, they may think of someone doing work in a lab, and fields such as physics, biology, and chemistry come to mind. When someone thinks of economics, they think of money, not a classical "scientific" idea. In reality, as stated previously, the nature of the work of some social scientists is very similar to many other "scientists" in classic scientific fields, specifically those working with data, and theoretical concepts. I cannot say the same for fields such as law, many concepts are only somewhat repeatable, whereas I could argue that fields like psychology and economics have more solid scientific bases.
 
  • #40
I think the distinction between the hard and soft sciences is that the former has very specific laws based on very specific isolated variables while the latter has so many variables unaccounted for that the results are very much open to interpretation. And different sciences fall on different spots along the spectrum between hard and soft.
 
  • #41
Yes both natural sciences and social sciences talk in terms of mathematics. And social sciences must be more rigorous in the calculations to account as much as possible all relevant variables to produce repeatable experiments that yield the same statistics.

There are more reasons to be rigorous considering that even in natural science not all calculations lead to acceptable theories. Example, plasma cosmology is a mathematical extrapolation from the lab to Hubble distance that was proposed by Alfven. I supposed its mathematics is correct as it was done by a Nobel laureate, but it was being rejected because ostensibly the observations don't support it. Just my perspective in comparing natural sciences and social sciences.
 
  • #42
Social studies are the equivalent of software as computers are hardware. In other words they give us direction (or programs) and without them hardware would exist as do the rocks but would remain purposeless.
 
  • #43
From the inside

lisab said:
IMO, social sciences are tools...

Far too many people enter the social science fields with a definite, impregnable, bias.

If most students (and eventually teachers on some level) entered the hard sciences with the same level of bias that I have seen in the soc. sciences, then the hard sciences would rapidly devolve into the cesspool of ideology that the soft sciences have.

In the hard sciences data and reproducibility rule (usually), in the soft sciences feelings and PC rule (almost all of the time).

Social science is not useless when done scientifically, but it's utterly worthless when approached as a form of social work.edit: I am an historian and political scientist, so I'm not antagonistic towards social science. I am DEEPLY troubled by the tendency in our field to relax the scientific standards, and freedom of inquiry, in service to preconceived views of "inclusiveness" and a fear of giving offense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
I'm partially of the school of thought that all science is either physics or stamp collecting. Medicine obviously has huge value but I think we need to figure out how to ensure the survival of the human race as time goes on and only physics can do that ultimately. Everything else we need to know is just a side effect of that. For example the geology of other planets etc.
 
  • #45
This is arguable, but IMO I don't see any uses of history, literature and philosophy.
 
  • #46
Rocket50 said:
This is arguable, but IMO I don't see any uses of history, literature and philosophy.
History is a way of knowing ourselves. What have we done in the past? What civilizations were lost to time? How did major civilizations fall so we can try to prevent the same thing happening to us? Literature is a way for humans to express deep complex thoughts and form stories from them. EVERYONE likes stories I don't care who you are.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #47
I'm not qualified by any means, but I'll give my two cents anyways.

I think anything that applies the scientific method in a valid way is a science - really science is a philosophy that is very, very effective at describing the natural world. So when we say someone is a scientist, the way I see it is that the person is a natural philosopher in some form, reaching their conclusions through empirically-gathered data.

Now, science has grown so expansive, specialized, and effective that we can apply the method to things that aren't necessarily 'natural' in the strictest sense, like human behavior, money, societies, culture, and history, and that's where things get iffy, because there are so many biases surrounding those that it's pretty much impossible to separate ourselves from them.

I think we could absolutely turn those studies into valid, rigid, absolute sciences in the future - but only if we start building up, kind of like how we did with physics to chemistry to biology to psychology. We could continue - psychology to sociology to economics to anthropology. Just the lines start to blur, because we're encompassing more and more data.

What I'm trying to say is this - there is physics involved in economics just like there is in chemistry. But it's physics on such a gigantic scale that for now we can't process all of that information.

But - are those studies useful? I'd say, of course they are! If you've ever been mentally ill and have voluntarily taken medication, as I have, the benefit of social science is real and very powerful. I know my Vyvanse helps me concentrate. The study of economics is what keeps countries afloat and in equilibrium. I'd say a field of academia that could keep millions of people relatively prosperous is absolutely of benefit.
 
  • #48
I agree with Casey. Social science relies on the scientific method. The term soft science is completely appropriate. It benefits me as a scientist by helping me understand my own human nature and recognize subconscious biases. I am now less likely to discount the opinions and ability of competent scientists that may not fit my preconceived notions of what a scientist looks like.

@StatGuy2000 The Republicans managed to nominate Romney, an Evolutionist who was willing to consider laws to combat man-made climate change. I believe that the days of a successful vocal anti-science right wing are numbered.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
Rocket50 said:
This is arguable, but IMO I don't see any uses of history, literature and philosophy.

History is incredibly useful for understanding the present, especially in areas like politics. If you're looking at a modern day conflict then without the background history you're going to have no good idea as to the nuances of what is going on and how it could potentially be solved.
 
  • #50
I think two things got mixed up here:
-hardness of science
-usefulness and practical application

Hardness is a problem:
-with beauty of science.
-when there is serious bias from individual scientist or even worse when there is a fad in whole community. Sure, it exists.

Actually some branch of physics can be very hard, have perfect formulas, good predictive record... and have no chance for practical application in foreseeable future. With social sciences, the only case when it hardness matters is when you may suspect that some branch simply can't have any usefulness because of being pseudoscience.

Possible conflict of interest: I'm an economist.
 
<h2>1. What is the purpose of examining the practicality and validity of social sciences?</h2><p>The purpose of examining the practicality and validity of social sciences is to ensure that the research and findings in this field are reliable and applicable in real-world situations. It helps to determine the effectiveness and usefulness of social science theories and methods in addressing societal issues and understanding human behavior.</p><h2>2. How do social scientists determine the practicality of their research?</h2><p>Social scientists determine the practicality of their research by conducting experiments, surveys, and observations in real-world settings. They also analyze data and gather feedback from individuals and communities who are affected by their research. This allows them to assess the relevance and applicability of their findings in practical situations.</p><h2>3. What factors affect the validity of social science research?</h2><p>There are several factors that can affect the validity of social science research, including the sample size, research design, data collection methods, and the bias of the researchers. It is important for social scientists to carefully consider these factors and address them in their research to ensure the validity of their findings.</p><h2>4. How can the practicality and validity of social sciences be improved?</h2><p>The practicality and validity of social sciences can be improved by using a variety of research methods, such as qualitative and quantitative approaches, and incorporating multiple perspectives and diverse samples in the research. It is also important for social scientists to continually evaluate and refine their methods to ensure the accuracy and applicability of their findings.</p><h2>5. Why is it important to examine the practicality and validity of social sciences?</h2><p>Examining the practicality and validity of social sciences is important because it ensures that the research in this field is relevant and useful in addressing real-world issues. It also helps to establish the credibility and trustworthiness of social science research, which is crucial for its impact and influence on society.</p>

1. What is the purpose of examining the practicality and validity of social sciences?

The purpose of examining the practicality and validity of social sciences is to ensure that the research and findings in this field are reliable and applicable in real-world situations. It helps to determine the effectiveness and usefulness of social science theories and methods in addressing societal issues and understanding human behavior.

2. How do social scientists determine the practicality of their research?

Social scientists determine the practicality of their research by conducting experiments, surveys, and observations in real-world settings. They also analyze data and gather feedback from individuals and communities who are affected by their research. This allows them to assess the relevance and applicability of their findings in practical situations.

3. What factors affect the validity of social science research?

There are several factors that can affect the validity of social science research, including the sample size, research design, data collection methods, and the bias of the researchers. It is important for social scientists to carefully consider these factors and address them in their research to ensure the validity of their findings.

4. How can the practicality and validity of social sciences be improved?

The practicality and validity of social sciences can be improved by using a variety of research methods, such as qualitative and quantitative approaches, and incorporating multiple perspectives and diverse samples in the research. It is also important for social scientists to continually evaluate and refine their methods to ensure the accuracy and applicability of their findings.

5. Why is it important to examine the practicality and validity of social sciences?

Examining the practicality and validity of social sciences is important because it ensures that the research in this field is relevant and useful in addressing real-world issues. It also helps to establish the credibility and trustworthiness of social science research, which is crucial for its impact and influence on society.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
873
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
127
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
942
  • General Discussion
Replies
7
Views
618
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
800
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
845
Replies
17
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
1K
Back
Top