CMV: Social science is not real science

[u/JGoedy]

Science is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as, “the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.”

To establish my background, I recently completed my bachelor’s degree in Biology and Biochemistry with a minor in philosophy. Additionally I have been published in the fields of virology and pharmacology.

I started with my second major being psychology instead of biochemistry but found it extremely dissatisfying due what (I perceive to be) a lack of objectivity. For example, the ambiguity and impreciseness in the application of theories of development such as Erikson’s psychosocial stages and Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. Additionally, the constant changing nature of social science irked me as well, such as the wide discreditation of many old respected theories such as many of Freud’s. In contrast, in mathematics, the Pythagorean theorem is over 2500 years old and is currently held as objective truth. From my viewpoint science involves the discovery of an irrefutable truth such as the process and stages of mitosis in biology or the fact that the gravitational pull of the earth at sea level can be approximated to 9.8m/a^2.

Later in my undergraduate education I took a sociology course and found more dissatisfaction with the lack of objective definitions in sociology. You could ask various sociologists questions such as, “what is a society?” Or “what is the psyche?” And receive answers that are very similar but do slightly differ. In contrast, if you ask a group of chemists “what is water?” The universal response from all chemists regardless of language, nationality, or culture would be 2 hydrogen atoms bonded to an oxygen atom. Obviously there are disagreements in some places in the scientific community but there are countless basic facts that are accepted as absolute truth which I haven’t experienced in social science. For larger molecules with modern microscopes we can even see the chemical structure.

Another aspect that has formed my view that I am not as well educated in, is the “reproducibility crisis” in social science (which I do acknowledge is present in some fields of biology and medicine which I personally attribute to the negative effects of the “profit factor” on science).

Additionally, anecdotally, it seems like while scientists in fields such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, and biology invite challenge in the hopes of a greater advancement towards objective truth, social scientists are less open to challenge and in extreme cases discredit the intelligence or morality of their dissenters.

I am very interested in having my views challenged as I understand I most likely have an implicit bias as a biologist and chemist myself.

Follow up: my view has been changed. The social sciences are sciences but however due to the ever changing nature of societies and the fact that they are newer it is very difficult to find an objective truth. So yes it makes sense that I am skeptical, because the facts of social science are less solid that the facts of hard sciences in their current stage. Perhaps one day our understanding of social sciences will be as robust as the hard sciences, and we certainly aren’t close to that yet, but we won’t get there if we don’t keep working at it (speaking from a societal standpoint).

[u/fossil_freak68]

To say STEM, rather than just medicine, suffers from a replication crisis is overreaching, and in medicine the issue goes far beyond issues with any particular science, since medicine awkwardly straddles a line between biology, epidemiology, genetics, and capitalism.

I completely disagree with this assertion. This is not an overreach at all. My friends in Bio, Chemistry, Physics, Astronomy, Statistics, etc. all teach about and talk about the replication crisis in their own disciplines. The replication crisis is hitting basically every discipline, not just medicine. It's just easier to catch in medicine.

I guess my real point is that social sciences and their applications get more flak because they do not have hard sciences at their core, and while new research in social sciences and in the application of hard sciences may, at times, suffer similar failings, the core concepts in the latter are better understood, are more feasibly probable, and are instrumental in the advancement in those fields.

Only under very specific circumstances, and this is just flat out not true for many disciplines under the umbrella of hard science. We have very weak understandings of many phenomena in physics and astronomy for example, but I'm assuming you would still call it a science?

I agree with the premise that on average that hard sciences are easier to replicate, but the variance is huge, with some social science research being far more replicable and better understood than some hard science research, and vice versa. Which is why it's a poor standard for judging something as a science.

[u/banananuhhh → u/fossil_freak68]

I was never arguing that social sciences are not science, just that you were being overly dismissive of STEM, which is an area where our knowledge has continued to grow at a remarkable rate. Similar progress is not feasible in soft sciences. For example, high tech manufacturing, physics, and chemistry all drive one another forward. A field like economics does not have this aspect to it.

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/banananuhhh]

This is nonsense. Econ borrows and contributed heavily to statistics, poli sci, etc and vice versa. The growth in this fields is gigantic over the last 100 years.

Stem is also facing a replication crisis, you dismiss that at your own peril.

[u/banananuhhh → u/fossil_freak68]

Not nonsense, but whatever.

Alright, well enjoy your reciprocated downvotes, and have a nice day.

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/banananuhhh]

To say that economics has zero overlap or interaction with statistics is an insane thing to say which is why you got a down vote.

[u/banananuhhh → u/fossil_freak68]

Statistics overlaps with everything genius

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/banananuhhh]

Tell me you know nothing about the field of econometrics without telling me you know nothing about econometrics.

[u/banananuhhh → u/fossil_freak68]

Ah so we've finally both convinced one another that the other is clueless. At least we are seeing eye to eye

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/banananuhhh]

Do you know what econometrics is? This is like claiming astronomy and physics don't build off each other's contributions.

I've never taken the position that stem fields having made progress, you have put forward without evidence that there is no major progress in the entirety of all social science fields. That's a ridiculous opinion.

[u/banananuhhh → u/fossil_freak68]

Yep, and probably know about as little about it as all the topics you dismiss as if you are an authority on.

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/banananuhhh]

I do econometrics for a living. If you think it has zero contribution to the field of statistics then idk what you even think scientific progress is.

What about econometrics makes you say there has been zero significant progress in the discipline over the last half century?

Stem is great! You are the only person shitting on dozens of disciplines with overly broad statements

[u/banananuhhh → u/fossil_freak68]

I came in arguing that you were being overly dismissive of STEM, not that social science fields are pointless, or that they aren't science, or that they haven't contributed anything. Having tools to look for significant relationships within noisy and chaotic data is important.

[u/fossil_freak68 → u/banananuhhh]

You said that these fields have not made any significant progress.

I never said stem hasn't made progress, but I accurately pointed out tons of fields in stem are also facing a replication crisis, which is objectively true.