Laura Benedict
IDS 802
Dr. P. Tramel
Homework 2
The Superiority of Social Science
Humans are
inherently interested in scientific principles. Every child begins asking the
all-important question “why” multiple times a day, sometimes for the same
concept repeatedly. On this note, Carl Sagan stated, “Every kid starts out as a
natural born-scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through
the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact,” (Psychology
Today, 1996, p. 33). The mind boggles at the breadth and depth of scientific
questions. It might be primarily for this reason that most of us allow other
commitments and challenges to entice us away from science as a vocation.
If you think of
“Science” as an Earth, you can then think of the major disciplines such as
physics, geology, and biology as continents. The one thread that holds the
entire planet together, the solid metal inner core of the Earth, is the
scientific method. Mathematics and English do not belong on the same planet,
they do not even belong in the same orbit. They are subjects as different in
kind as to be almost completely oblivious of the existence of the other. This
is not so with science. No matter how different astrophysics is from abnormal
psychology, they belong on the same planet. Just as geological continents are
segmented into countries, cities, and then neighborhoods, scientific
disciplines are similarly segmented into ever more specialized fields. This
essay will effectively compare the East and the West hemispheres. As a graduate
student, I know that last statement is an Americentric misnomer: East and West
are relative terms. The sun shines equally on the whole Earth around the
equatorial region. Similarly, each scientific field of inquiry is equally
important.
Even though
scientific wonder is inherent, scientific thinking and knowledge is not. “Science
is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge,” (Sagan, 1994,
p. 104). Scientific thinking requires going beyond the original statement of
fact, it requires digging deeper into the subject, as well as around the
subject. The scientific thinker will ask if the statement is really true, if
there are other possible explanations for the same conclusion, and how would
the conclusion differ if one small detail is changed. In short, scientific
thinking requires thinking critically. This level of thinking, questioning, and
researching does not tend to make friends among peers or instructors,
especially at the grade-school level. For this reason, many interested in
scientific endeavors are dissuaded by peer pressure.
Another form of
dissuasion from the study of many of the natural sciences is the language used.
Digging too deeply into the natural sciences will bring the student
face-to-face with large, difficult to read words, which require other large,
difficult to read words in order to define and understand (Machlup). Meanwhile,
social sciences provide a friendlier window into the world of science because
the jargon is frequently used in the news, on social media, and in every day
conversation. These concepts still require deeper learning to fully understand,
but the layperson feels he or she can grasp the basics earlier, providing much
needed confidence (Machlup). Students of natural sciences frequently disdain
the social sciences because the social sciences display greater variability in
their observed data, they do not formulate general theories within their
fields, and they have no constant numerical relationships on which to rely.
However, despite this apparent disdain, we will see that the social sciences
hold a valid place in the scientific world, arguably a loftier place. The
social sciences use the same basic principles to search for answers to
different questions than the natural sciences, but they add more to every
answer than the natural sciences can ever achieve.
Variability of Observed Data
The basic method
of scientific inquiry is generally and broadly described as the scientific
method. This is a general outline of a course of action in answering any
question as empirically as is possible at the current time. In my High School
basic sciences class, my teacher amazed us all by creating a vacuum, and pulling
a boiled egg through the narrow neck of a bottle merely by the use of a match.
I made peanut brittle and ice cream in chemistry class by closely following the
instructions written in chemical notation, instead of kitchen recipe format.
These classroom “experiments” are easily replicated to find the exact same
results. Not all scientific research is as easily replicated. At this moment, I
can pluck from my archives scholarly sources on such subjects as the efficacy
of teaching ethical decision making skills at the post-secondary level, the
benefits of utilizing authoritarian parenting styles versus authoritative or
permissive parenting styles, and a brief overview of string theory. None of
these research projects are easily replicated; not all of them are classified
as social science.
Machlup views the
social sciences to be inferior to the natural sciences because while conducting
experiments, social scientists find it impossible to control for every relevant
variable. Scriven agrees with Machlup in that the considerably greater number
of relevant variables inherent in the social sciences makes primary
experimentation, therefore experiment replication, nearly impossible. However,
he feels that these extra variables add a richness and dimension, found only
rarely in the natural sciences. The conclusions found after analyzing field
observations are richer, deeper, and more meaningful than the clinical
reporting of data and facts found from the natural sciences. Indeed, where the
natural sciences fill you with awe and wonder, and entice you with marvelous facts,
the social sciences do so over a cozy warm beverage of choice, and the
comforting company of friends.
Theory Formulation
The natural
sciences are replete with general theories to explain how the world works, but
the social sciences are more apt to ask the question, “why”. This is the very
question that will strike fear and dread in the heart of a weary parent who
does not know the answer, and does not care. This is the same question that
keeps social scientists up for days on end, seemingly tirelessly, searching for
a glimmer of an answer. The short answer is, there is no short answer. It is
for this reason that many natural scientists look down their noses at the
social scientists who do not care, because they are too busy searching for
answers with a gleam in their eyes. Fay and Moon write that the natural
sciences formulate a theory by considering theory and measurement. However,
they add that the social sciences must also consider the identity and meaning
of the actions so closely observed by the researcher. These actions must be
identified and defined by the social actors themselves, or the context is lost
and the observation is useless. On this note, Machlup seems truly saddened that
this dimension is non-quantifiable. As an economist, he is used to dealing
almost exclusively with numbers and their meanings, thus aesthetic and poignant
depths are likely impenetrable to him.
Constant Numerical Relationships
This subject seems
to be a favorite of Machlup, given his chosen field. He writes of the velocity
of light, Planck’s constant, the gravitational constant (which I argue is only
constant on this planet), the Coulomb constant, proton mass, the ratio of proton
mass to electron mass, and the fine-structure constant. “Sociologists…have
reported some ‘relatively stable’ ratios…but the ‘stability’ is only relative
to the extreme variability of other numerical ratios,” (Machlup, p. 13).
This suggests that
the lack of numerical constants implies a social science inferiority to natural
sciences. However, numerical constants are not the only constants that matter. Machlup
does not overtly provide a reason for requiring numerical constants, but he
implies that they simplify mathematical computations. However, mathematical
constructs are only one small part of the whole picture. Constants other than
numbers are called archetypes; for instance, behavior archetypes such as the
Mother and the Warrior. Personality archetypes are also familiar to many people
by their letter notations such as ENTJ and ISFP. Additionally, social groups
always separate into a hierarchy in consistent ways, such as by monetary worth,
by brute strength, or by something more arbitrary such as color of skin. The
constants found in social sciences are more interesting, provide more
information, and are more usable than are the constants found in mathematics.
Conclusion
Our scientific
Earth is held together by the basic principle of gathering empirical evidence: the
scientific method. The higher variability of observed data in the social
sciences leads to richer, deeper, more meaningful conclusions than are found in
the natural sciences. The general theories found in natural sciences answer “how”,
but social sciences are more interested in answering “why”. The social sciences
have more interesting, more informative, and more usable constants than do the
natural sciences. Therefore, the social sciences use the same basic principles
to search for answers to different questions than the natural sciences, but
they add more to every answer than the natural sciences can ever achieve.
References
Fay,
B., & Moon, D. J. (1994). What would an adequate philosophy of social science
look like? In M. Martin & L. C. McIntyre (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of social science (pp. 21-35).
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Bradford.
Machlup,
F. (1994). Are the social sciences really inferior? In M. Martin & L. C.
McIntyre (Eds.), Readings in the
philosophy of social science (pp. 5-19). Massachusetts Institute of
Technology: Bradford.
Psychology
Today, (1996, Jan-Feb). A slayer of demons. Psychology
Today, 29(1), 30-66.
Sagan,
C. (1994). Can we know the universe? Reflections on a grain of salt. In M.
Gardner (Ed.) Great essays in science (pp.
102-109). Amherst, NY: Prometheus
Books.
Scriven,
M. (1994). A possible distinction between traditional scientific disciplines
and the study of human behavior. In M. Martin & L. C. McIntyre (Eds.), Readings in the philosophy of social science
(pp. 71-77). Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Bradford
