by Brendan James
Josh Horgan thinks social sciences (“softies”) are still struggling to find their place in the shadow of the hard sciences:
Softies look askance at the aspirations of hardies—with good reason. The recent recession provides a powerful demonstration of social science’s limits. The world’s smartest economists, equipped with the most sophisticated mathematical models and powerful computers that money can buy, did not foresee—or at any rate could not prevent—the financial calamities that struck the United States and the rest of the world in 2008.
He says this difference is just where the softer sciences can play to their strengths:
Protons, plasmas and planets are oblivious to what scientists say about them. Social systems, on the other hand, consist of objects that watch television; listen to the radio; read newspapers, journals, books, and blogs; and consequently change their behavior. In other words, social-science theories can transform societies if people believe in them. …
So we are left with a paradox: Although social science is in many respects quite weak, it can also be extraordinarily potent in terms of its impact, for ill or good, on our lives. Think of all the harm done in the name of Marx—and of social Darwinist and free-market theorists, from Herbert Spencer to Milton Friedman.
For the philosophy geeks among you: this seems reminiscent of the theories of Lester Frank Ward, the forgotten American Aristotle (with impressive mutton chops) who wanted a system of “applied sociology” to fall somewhere between pure science and political activism. It remains a tricky target to hit.
The Dish 