Should the social sciences actually be called 'sciences'?

[Meed]

That is typical for all young fields. Medicine as a scientific discipline is barely over two hundred years old, and psychology not much more than a hundred; and it is only in the last half-century or so that scientific rigor has been a primary quality of either.

Very true. Psychology as it's commonly studied today probably didn't really start until the 70s-80s. Before that you had, broadly speaking, the Behaviorists who were scientific, but too extreme in the limitations they imposed on themselves and somewhat overconfident in how much they could learn from studying mice, and the Freudians, who were not very scientific at all. There are some notable people dating awhile back though, like Ebbinghaus, who would have fit right in with the modern psychology world.

 

[macdoc]

Blut

Imagine how much more complex a physicist's experimental protocols would have to be if leptons were self-aware and prone to sulking.

and this is the problem...self aware and sulking....how about 800 lb with teeth and claws...etc etc.

The initial differentiation between physical sciences and biological sciences is a good start.

Keeping many disciplines within medicine is another good start. Psychology etc

Then another social studies including history, geography, economics,

The headache I see is the all want the imprimatur of being a "science"...so in my view dilutes the term. I mean political science.....heaven forbid

Even in philosophical fora I see them clamoring as the "original science" yet that's only an historical artefact...natural philosophers.....like alchemists as opposed to chemists.

I don't think it's a matter of "young or old" disciplines..but rather the nature of subject....is it open to consistent outcomes...not statistical tilts one way or the other....

What's wrong with pychologist as a sub category of Medicine...or maybe the medicine community would object

Even the title of the forum is interesting.

Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Medicine, Math is clearly separated and technology gets it's own segment even tho it's mostly applied science.

This is another forum I frequent...I did not create the titles....one of the bio sciences moderators did.

Now this is done a convenient grouping with no rigor. But interesting how it falls out.

 

[Meed]

Keeping many disciplines within medicine is another good start. Psychology etc

Psychology isn't within medicine... You are probably thinking of clinical psychology, which I suppose one could argue is in the same ballpark as medicine. But medical research and clinical psychology research are both science, so I'm not sure why this matters.

It must be down to the massive influence of Freud on popular culture that when people hear "psychology" they think of someone lying down on a couch being asked about their mother as opposed to science.

I don't think it's a matter of "young or old" disciplines..but rather the nature of subject....is it open to consistent outcomes...not statistical tilts one way or the other....

What makes you think social sciences aren't "open to consistent outcomes"?

 

[macdoc]

I asked for an experiment in pyschology akin to showing C02 absorbs IR and always absorbs IR and apparently did not get an answer

BTW - employing science, as technology does, does not mean technology is a science, and in my view neither is medicine.

It's not to denigrate one over the other...I just think it's important to distinguish.....for instance political science is an oxymoron in my view....and economics as a science IS.

So you then get joe public thinking that all science is in doubt due to the the fog some disciplines flounder around in.

That distrust is socially destructive. Medicine is particularly prone to mistrust and conspiracy ( anti-vaxxers etc ).

So distinguishing categories of science I think is important to avoid building distrust.

 

[steenkh]

I think it is wrong to pin the science label on disciplines based on their results. It should be the methods they use that determine if they are sciences. When Hahnemann invented homoeopathy, he had more success at curing people than contemporary doctors, simply because traditional medicine in those days tended to be more dangerous than doing nothing, but homoeopathy was not scientific. It was only with the use of statistics, double-blind tests and other improved methods that medicine turned into a science - at least as seen from our vantage point.

The reason why crackpot theories of physics are not science is likewise because they do not use the scientific methods, not because of their results.

 

[luchog]

There is a difference between a practitioner (e.g. therapist/counselor/psychiatrist) and a research psychologist (a.k.a. scientist). Unfortunately there are still a lot of therapists out there practicing dodgy techniques rather than relying on the actual research literature.

You're redefining terms. There is certainly a lack of experimentation in psychology. Animal experiments are only of very limited practical value; while experiments on humans are so limited and restricted as to be of minimal usefulness compared to the experimentation that goes on in other fields. Saying that there is no lack of experimentation because there is some minimal level of experimentation is ridiculous semantic quibbling.

 

[Dancing David]

All I know is, I saw a psychologist ~5 years ago for testing and was given the Rorschach test.

I mean, yes some of these fields are difficult to study, but there is also a lot of bad/non-science that seems to persist.

Then that was a dufus of a psychologist, there is no research data on the use of Rorchach test.
Now again psychology can be a science and often is, however people who label themselves as psychologists may not be scientific in their approach.

 

[jt512]

Psychology certainly qualifies as hard science as much as medicine does. The lack of experimentation does not reflect a deficiency in the science itself, but rather, an ethical barrier to experimenting on humans; and one that has been violated at various points in the past (yielding valuable data at the cost of inhumanity and atrocity).

What do you think experimental psychologists do, if not run experiments?

 

[Meed]

I asked for an experiment in pyschology akin to showing C02 absorbs IR and always absorbs IR and apparently did not get an answer

And I asked you for clarification on what you were asking for and did not get an answer. I also must repeat that I don't know anything about the research on C02 absorbsion of radiation, so I don't know how I'm supposed to find something that's "akin" to something I'm not even familiar with.

BTW - employing science, as technology does, does not mean technology is a science, and in my view neither is medicine.

Medical research is science. Medical practice is not science, but one should always hope that it's informed by science as well as possible.

for instance political science is an oxymoron in my view....and economics as a science IS.

How so?

 

[Meed]

You're redefining terms. There is certainly a lack of experimentation in psychology.

No, I'm not. I took "lack of experimentation" to mean "not very many experiments are carried out" or "most of the research doesn't include experimentation". I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is the way a typical English speaker would interpret "lack of experimentation". And interpreted this way, the claim is dead wrong. Most of the research in psychology today is experimental.

But you are, it seems, using "lack of experimentation" to mean something like "lack of experiments that are useful compared to other fields", which is too vague to assess.

 

[blutoski]

Medical research is science. Medical practice is not science, but one should always hope that it's informed by science as well as possible.

Yep. I think Medicine is usually considered either a "science-allied profession", or "technology". Engineering, nursing - even things like architecture or city planning - are other examples.

 

[blutoski]

Then that was a dufus of a psychologist, there is no research data on the use of Rorchach test.

Not defending the Rorchach, but there's tons of data. It's just that the data shows its usefulness depends on the application. It can be clinically misapplied, and often is. And sometimes, yes it's supported by evidence, but there's more useful tools that should be used instead such as Apperception images.

But that's true of any medical treatment, too. Chelation Therapy is a completely legitimate treatment for heavy metal poisoning. It's a quack treatment for Morgellons Disease.

So for the Rorchach example, we'd have to know why it was used to know if it was appropriate or not.

Now again psychology can be a science and often is, however people who label themselves as psychologists may not be scientific in their approach.

Basically conflating claims about the underlying science with claims about the behavior of the profession.

Quacks abound in medicine... that doesn't mean research medicine, pharmacology, physiology, biochemistry, &c is hokum.

 

[luchog]

No, I'm not. I took "lack of experimentation" to mean "not very many experiments are carried out" or "most of the research doesn't include experimentation". I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this is the way a typical English speaker would interpret "lack of experimentation". And interpreted this way, the claim is dead wrong. Most of the research in psychology today is experimental.

But you are, it seems, using "lack of experimentation" to mean something like "lack of experiments that are useful compared to other fields", which is too vague to assess.

Or "lack of experiments that are far more effective at advancing our knowledge of psychology; and would be available if it wasn't for ethical limitations".

I guess I should have said something more like "lack of direct experimentation"; since the majority of experiments are indirect, using animal subjects, or very limited fields in which human experimentation can be conducted. A whole lot of directly relevant and powerful experimentation is (rightly) blocked by ethical concerns. That hasn't stopped less ethical entities from engaging in those experiments, and the rest of the world from eventually benefiting. But it's not something can or should consider doing, so we resort to working around them, doing what little can be done and extrapolating from that.

It's like limiting physics experimentation to just looking at the skies or microscopes or nuclear reactors, because deliberately smashing particles in an accelerator is considered unethical. Or limiting chemistry research to extrapolating from inorganic reactions; because it's unethical to perform experiments with organic molecules and reactions. Sure, a lot of experimentation could be done, and useful knowledge gained; but it's less useful than direct experiments with the particles or compounds we really want to know about.

The same problem exists throughout the medical field. If we need to know the LD50 of a particular drug, we experiment on rats and extrapolate to humans; hoping that the results are at least strongly similar. If we need to test other drugs, we have to perform a lot of animal testing before ever testing on human subjects; and even then, there is a limit to the testing that can be done on human subjects. It would be more useful to perform drug testing on large groups of humans; because we know the results would be more directly applicable, and we would get a greater idea of how the effects vary between subjects long before it is released. But there are serious ethical problems with subjecting humans to unknown and potentially harmful drugs, let alone deliberately overdosing (this, despite the proliferation of televangelists, direct-marketing companies, chiropractors, and other similarly unproductive and useless members of society).

 

[Meed]

I guess I should have said something more like "lack of direct experimentation"; since the majority of experiments are indirect, using animal subjects,

The majority of experiments are not done on animal subjects. Not even close. Maybe if it were the 70s that would be true.

or very limited fields in which human experimentation can be conducted.

Huh? Human experimentation is used in pretty much every field of psychology, to my knowledge.

I hate to use credentials as an argument (my credentials are hardly impressive anyway), but I did spend a few years as a graduate student in research psychology while also being paid as a research assistant, and also worked for free in psychology research labs as an undergraduate while majoring in psych. Ultimately I decided to pursue statistics instead and left psychology behind. So I'm not an expert, but at the same time I have got some idea what I'm talking about. When I hear people say things like psychology should be kept "within medicine" or or that experiments done on humans are rare, I have to assume that they have very little knowledge of what contemporary psychology research is like.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Predictive is predictive. Just because a particular scientific discipline lacks the precision of physics doesn't make it less predictive, it just means that we do not yet have sufficient knowledge in that discipline to make more precise predictions. We still have mathematics, and statistical analysis to give an idea of how reliable our predictions can be.

So what was your point that soft science conclusions had less predictive value?

Weather and biology are extremely complex systems; but ones in which we do have an understanding of the physical forces involved, and the difficulty of making predictions. There is very little actual subjective interpretation involved (moreso in medicine than in meteorology, which is a branch of physics), only mathematical uncertainties and limits to our ability to observe and model. Meteorology involves a highly chaotic system, and chaotic systems have limits to the predictive capabilities that can be derived from them. But we can still understand and quantify where those limits are, and estimate probabilities; and as the technology available to observe and model these systems improves, so does our ability to understand them and make predictions about them. Medicine in particular is still a very young science, and we are making great strides in understanding the complexities involved and enhancing our predictive capabilities.

Social sciences lack that predictive value; because they are not as amenable to mathematical description or statistical analysis. There has been, so far, no predictive value to any of them that exceeds chance by any significant degree. They are strictly observational. The fields are rife with subjective interpretation and agenda-oriented approaches. One could (and some have) make the argument that that is due to the tremendous complexity involved; and that time will provide us the tools to introduce objective measurements with predictive capacity. That may be true; and should it become so, then they could be treated as any other physical science. But that day is still far off, if it ever comes; particularly since there is still no real consensus on exactly what we can measure, and how.

I do believe you are merely describing bad sociology science rather than sociology science.

Good research has a dozen ways of controlling for subjective interpretation. Bad research, not so much. And as for mathematical description, that doesn't make much sense. I can't describe the process of antibiotic resistance using strictly mathematical terminology while I can describe the way statistical analysis plays a big role in epidemiological research.

Perhaps I don't know what you mean, but I think you may just have some misunderstanding of how one undertakes good scientific research of human behavior.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Compared to other scientific disciplines, such as physics or chemistry, experimentation in Psychology is still very limited by ethical considerations. ....

No. I don't think you have a good working knowledge of how one uses matched controls and epidemiology to study these psychological hypotheses. "Very limited" is just not the case. Are there some limitations? Sure. There are plenty of such limitations in physics, it just not ethics that is the limiting factor.

 

[bit_pattern]

I love observing people much smarter than myself debating topics that I can only haphazardly get my head around. As for my own contribution, I chose to study an environmental social science degree because I'm too innumerate to study real science and I enjoy writing sociological essays because I like using big words

 

[bit_pattern]

Somehow this seems appropriate for the thread

 

[Meed]

Somehow this seems appropriate for the thread

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=536&pictureid=9717[/qimg]

I know it's humorless of me to quibble with a comedic comic strip, but...

Sociology is not applied psychology is not applied biology is not applied chemistry is not applied physics. Sort of like how Newtonian physics is not applied quantum physics. Can you imagine the amount of complexity if sociology was actually treated as applied quantum physics?

 

[Trakar]

I think it was Massimo Pigliucci who said that the 'hard sciences' are misnamed. They're actually the 'easy sciences' - very reproduceable, very few variables.

For some reason, this has led to many experts in those fields forgetting they have mastered the lowest hanging fruit, and looking down their nose at their peers who are addressing much more complex subjects.

Largely agreed.
Not that real-world radiation transfer physics isn't much more complex and involved than the most simplistic single-molecule radiation capture and emission model, but it is indeed much more difficult (if not impossible) to reduce human behavior to such a simplistic model.