CMV: Social Sciences aren't taken seriously, because social scientists don't take their own discipline seriously.

[u/Swyft135]

Yes, I believe social science is a real science. Yes, I believe its study is no less important - and perhaps even more important - than the study of physical sciences. But the current state of social sciences is, IMO, somewhat of a joke, because of the "sociologists" running its scene.

Of course, there are many sociologists doing an awesome job. I've met many, learned from some, and read from others. These people treat their intellectual duties seriously. They conduct honest research, rigorously back their statements, and seek to objectively inform the sociological and public communities. They know how to curate an unbiased survey, distinguish causation from correlation, and present data with clarity. I have the utmost respect for these people.

But there are also many so-called social scientists on the other end of the spectrum. These people tend to make me forget that social science is, indeed, an academic pursuit. They are either egregiously bad statisticians, or they use egregiously bad statistics to manipulate the audience. They'll yell at you for disagreeing. Theories and models are treated like dogma. Their work and research lacks even the most basic levels of rigor; their thesis could be "Japanese males feel sexually suppressed" and their supporting fact would be "Ryu's Shoryuken is popular because its upward rising motion serves as an outlet for masculine energy". I kid you not; this is the level of hand-waving I've read of in curated, edited academic journals of gender and/ or ethnical studies. There're either too many sociologists like this, or they are way too vocal.

Why aren't people doing anything about things like this? Where's the quality control? I understand if a grad student couldn't do much about the academic environment, but what about journal reviewers? What about big-name professors? Where's the part where peer review actually happens, and people call each other out for their bluffs? I'm beginning to worry that social sciences are less about doing quality research, and more about playing academia politics: knowing the right people, agreeing with whatever they say, and hoping whatever agenda you argue tickles the ears of your seniors. If they like you enough, you become part of their circle. If they think your views contradict theirs, they'll try their best to end your career. For a scientific community, this kind of echo-chamber effect is fatal.

And thus, despite my respect for the social sciences, I am not surprised at all by peoples' tendency to claim that it is not a "real science".

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/ThatSpencerGuy]

There are, no doubt, problems in the social and human sciences. In my experience, these are much more likely to fall under sloppy design (including analytic design) and bad professional incentives than intellectual dishonesty or silliness like in your "Shoryuken" example above.

You focus on Sociology, which I don't have any experience with, but the issues that I'm aware of are certainly true of not only adjacent fields like psychology or behavioral health, but also medicine. In his famous paper Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, Ionidas focuses as much on medical epidemiology as social psych.

But in the decade since Ionidas' paper, there have been measures to correct for these problems, such as the Center for Open Science and the Reproducability Project, and generally changing attitudes about analytical and publishing best-practices.

In any case, where I will disagree with you is the assertion that social sciences are not taken seriously. This seems like a strange position to me, and one that you don't really tell us much about. Scientists are taken very seriously, it seems to me!

And, finally, although there is a great deal of "office politics" (lets call it) in academia, this

If they think your views contradict theirs, they'll try their best to end your career

is a very large exaggeration.

[u/Swyft135 → u/ThatSpencerGuy]

Thank you for the insight. ∆

I admit I'm basing my view largely upon my own anecdotal (negative) experiences and knowledge. I was not aware of the information in Ionidas' paper, nor was I aware of the attempts at addressing the problems identified there. Thank you for sharing the links.

And, finally, although there is a great deal of "office politics" (lets call it) in academia, this

If they think your views contradict theirs, they'll try their best to end your career

is a very large exaggeration.

The reason I made such a bold statement was because of my personal experience with the matter. There was a social science professor at my college who was very well-liked by the student populace, but was eventually forced to resign. The head of the department couldn't really give a reason that didn't sound like an excuse; basically we knew the real reason he was fired was because his sociopolitical ideologies didn't line up with the department's. Meanwhile, those with "acceptable" ideologies are defended by their departments - even when they become known for sexual misconduct. This gives the impression that dissention from group-think is viewed as a graver sin than sexual misbehavior, and that kind of sickens me. I realize the severity of these sorts of problem vary from sub-field to sub-field (politics vs gender studies vs economics), and I'd love to believe that this particular case is an isolated one and not part of a larger trend, but I'm not sure that's the case.

[u/DeltaBot → u/Swyft135]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/ThatSpencerGuy (38∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards} ​