Social ‘science’ is anything but

Social ‘science’ is anything but

Since it’s introduction this particular branch of soft science, like for example homeopathy, has shown a distinct lack of connection between the real world and it’s ‘findings’

As it stands it is riddled with faked studies, notorious for the number of papers which had to be  redrawn on the basis of falsified data, silly methods and hopelessly clueless persons practicing it.

I’m glad that my pov finds some support finally, even if it is somewhat understated in it’s content:

Measuring Progress: Why Is Social Science Not as Successful as Natural Science?

Recently, Stefano Balietti, Michael Mäs, and Dirk Helbing, computational social scientists based out of ETH Zurich in Switzerland, openly wondered why progress in the social sciences is slower than in the natural sciences. They attributed the disparity to fragmentation. While most of the natural sciences are unified under large, sweeping theories supported by rigorous evidence, allowing scientists to work collaboratively under a common umbrella, the social sciences are often fragmented into competing theories. For example, psychology has dozens of different schools of thought. Sociology has three major perspectives. Economics, of course, features capitalism, socialism, and all sorts of other schools. Those subscribing to competing notions often cordon themselves off into their own respective groups and disregard conflicting evidence.

But retreating to an environment akin to a sounding-board hampers scientific progress, the researchers say. They urge social scientists to break free from their schools and seek out discussion and disagreement.

“We desperately need to create adequate venues for critical and interactive discussion to take place. This would be the best way to support scientific progress,” they write.

Critics have also urged social scientists to reinforce theory with rigorous experimental evidence. In the last few years, you may have heard about social psychology’s “replication crisis,” in which many of the discipline’s so-called “important findings” could not be repeated in the laboratory. Replication is a central tenet in the natural sciences, in essence serving to verify that something is correct.


In other words: it’s a messy mess of a mess

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s