Higgs Boson Found!!

[Feud]

For those that are arguing that the social sciences have been the cause of major advances in society, can you please cite specific examples? From reading Feud's posts, I get the impression that he gives credit to social scientists for the entire structure of our society. This cannot possibly be what he is saying, so I would really like to see some concrete examples to see what he (or the rest of you) are actually on about.

I'm certainly not suggesting that everything around us is a consequence of social planning. Social science as an organized field developed well after rules and groups had formed.

As for concrete examples, an example would be Kenneth and Mamie Clark. Their sociological studies about racial biases and preferences were an important part of the effort to end systematic racism within the American legal system, and have consequently impacted untold millions of lives. They did not render the change single handily, of course, but it played an important contribution by giving the rhetoric of the emerging civil rights group scientific backing.

[BGP]

For those that are arguing that the social sciences have been the cause of major advances in society, can you please cite specific examples? From reading Feud's posts, I get the impression that he gives credit to social scientists for the entire structure of our society. This cannot possibly be what he is saying, so I would really like to see some concrete examples to see what he (or the rest of you) are actually on about.

I'm certainly not suggesting that everything around us is a consequence of social planning. Social science as an organized field developed well after rules and groups had formed.

As for concrete examples, an example would be Kenneth and Mamie Clark. Their sociological studies about racial biases and preferences were an important part of the effort to end systematic racism within the American legal system, and have consequently impacted untold millions of lives. They did not render the change single handily, of course, but it played an important contribution by giving the rhetoric of the emerging civil rights group scientific backing.

Social is a science like romance is the study of dyadic interpersonal dynamics.

[xander]

For those that are arguing that the social sciences have been the cause of major advances in society, can you please cite specific examples? From reading Feud's posts, I get the impression that he gives credit to social scientists for the entire structure of our society. This cannot possibly be what he is saying, so I would really like to see some concrete examples to see what he (or the rest of you) are actually on about.

I'm certainly not suggesting that everything around us is a consequence of social planning. Social science as an organized field developed well after rules and groups had formed.

As for concrete examples, an example would be Kenneth and Mamie Clark. Their sociological studies about racial biases and preferences were an important part of the effort to end systematic racism within the American legal system, and have consequently impacted untold millions of lives. They did not render the change single handily, of course, but it played an important contribution by giving the rhetoric of the emerging civil rights group scientific backing.

That's about what I thought. Marx and Engels are a good example, as well, and I wouldn't have been surprised to see names like Mead, Freud, or Kinsey mentioned. I just wanted to be sure that we were on the same page, more or less.

The way I see it, "science" is very young in human history. It is only since the Enlightenment that people have been conducting studies in a systematic way that bears any resemblance to the scientific method, i.e. falsifiable hypothesis testing. The social sciences are even younger---near as I can tell, it is people like Lewis Henry Morgan, Edward Tyler, and their contemporaries in the 19th century that gave rise to the social sciences (i.e. the empirical study of humans and society, rather than the rational and philosophical musings of people such as Descartes).

Social is a science like romance is the study of dyadic interpersonal dynamics.

You are clearly an idiot.

xander

[Cooper42]

The way I see it, "science" is very young in human history. It is only since the Enlightenment that people have been conducting studies in a systematic way that bears any resemblance to the scientific method, i.e. falsifiable hypothesis testing. The social sciences are even younger---near as I can tell, it is people like Lewis Henry Morgan, Edward Tyler, and their contemporaries in the 19th century that gave rise to the social sciences (i.e. the empirical study of humans and society, rather than the rational and philosophical musings of people such as Descartes).
xander

In Europe the founding names tend to be Durkheim and Weber (which, from the very start of the discipline sets up a split between positivists and qualitative apporaches that remains the most major rift in the field of study). Which makes social sciences barely 100 years old.

[Feud]

That's about what I thought. Marx and Engels are a good example, as well, and I wouldn't have been surprised to see names like Mead, Freud, or Kinsey mentioned. I just wanted to be sure that we were on the same page, more or less.

The way I see it, "science" is very young in human history. It is only since the Enlightenment that people have been conducting studies in a systematic way that bears any resemblance to the scientific method, i.e. falsifiable hypothesis testing. The social sciences are even younger---near as I can tell, it is people like Lewis Henry Morgan, Edward Tyler, and their contemporaries in the 19th century that gave rise to the social sciences (i.e. the empirical study of humans and society, rather than the rational and philosophical musings of people such as Descartes).

That's about when it formalized into a proper academic field, yes. It's a bit messy though before, just as Newton is generally seen as a scientist before science really emerged as we know it today, people like James Madison, Thomas Hobbes, and many other philosophers were treading in what is now considered social science territory. But yeah, as a modern academic field of study, it was the 19th century that it really crystalized.

I made a mistake in my previous post, I said the American "legal" system, when that's not really accurate. It was more specifically applied to the educational system, and from there institutional racsim in the general public sector.

[xander]

In Europe the founding names tend to be Durkheim and Weber (which, from the very start of the discipline sets up a split between positivists and qualitative apporaches that remains the most major rift in the field of study). Which makes social sciences barely 100 years old.

Indeed. I chose Morgan and Tyler in order to push the social sciences back as far as I could. Note, however, that Durheim and Weber are subsumed into the category of contemporaries of Morgan and Tyler. Still, you make my point: the social sciences are very, very young.

That's about when it formalized into a proper academic field, yes. It's a bit messy though before, just as Newton is generally seen as a scientist before science really emerged as we know it today, people like James Madison, Thomas Hobbes, and many other philosophers were treading in what is now considered social science territory. But yeah, as a modern academic field of study, it was the 19th century that it really crystalized.

I would argue that the sciences (natural and social) are unified by methodology. Most branches of academic thought seek to understand the universe in which we live, but the sciences do so through the lens of inductive empiricism (i.e. observe, predict, test, refine). Early natural philosophers such as Newton and Galileo fit this model, as they made testable predictions about the universe, and tested those predictions against reality. The process was not nearly as formal as it is today, but they still behaved as modern scientists (for the most part). In contrast, I'm not willing to give you Hobbes---he wrote about something that is now studied by social scientists, but was himself not a social scientist. On the other hand, I'll give you Madison et al., if you consider the US a grand social experiment. Moreover, I might even grant you Machiavelli as an ur-social scientist (he made predictions about human behaviour, and suggested "experiments" based upon those predicitons).

Just as a point of information, I would exclude philosophy, mathematics, and most of the study of history from the sciences (philosophy and mathematics are rational, rather then empirical, endeavors, and history, for the most part, is purely descriptive and does not seek to model or predict---though that seems to be changing, and I can see a day when the study of history is subsumed into sociology).

It was more specifically applied to the educational system, and from there institutional racsim in the general public sector.

In this case, I would argue that the racism (institutional and otherwise) existed first, and the sciences were used later to justify the systems already in place.

xander

[Feud]

It was more specifically applied to the educational system, and from there institutional racsim in the general public sector.

In this case, I would argue that the racism (institutional and otherwise) existed first, and the sciences were used later to justify the systems already in place.

xander

I meant that the research was used to combat racism that was then in existence in the educational and public sector, not as a justification of it.

[Xarlaxas]

. . .history, for the most part, is purely descriptive and does not seek to model or predict---though that seems to be changing, and I can see a day when the study of history is subsumed into sociology).

xander

I'd argue that history is already at the modelling and predicting state more than descriptive, at least at the University level. Certainly, throughout Primary School and High School history was taught to us from a descriptive point of view, but when I got to the final year of High School we got introduced to Historiography, and then in University the direction jumped from the descriptive being secondary to the essential part of history: analysis. At this point we were being expected to use primary and secondary sources to spend most of our essays describing why things happened, with some of the how, and as little of the what as we could get away with without compromising the analysis.

The way my lecturers spoke about things there was definitely an emphasis on using history to understand how the modern world works, so modeling and prediction seems to be a big thing, which reminded me quite a bit of sociology, which was really interesting!

Of course, this could be a very recent development in history education, or be unique to British/Scottish universities, or even just my own institution! I don't really know how they teach history in the US after all.

Also, a bit of an aside, but I think this article is relevant to the current theme of the broader discussion: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2 ... sense.html

[xander]

I meant that the research was used to combat racism that was then in existence in the educational and public sector, not as a justification of it.

Ah. Clearly, I was confused. You are right, of course.

. . .history, for the most part, is purely descriptive and does not seek to model or predict---though that seems to be changing, and I can see a day when the study of history is subsumed into sociology).

Of course, this could be a very recent development in history education, or be unique to British/Scottish universities, or even just my own institution! I don't really know how they teach history in the US after all. :)

This, right here. I don't know much about the European educational system, but in most American institutions, history has historically (heh) been a part of the humanities with philosophy and the fine arts. It was primarily descriptive, not predictive. This has been slowly changing over the last 40 or 50 years (see, for instance, Howard Zinn and other social historians). As I said, I think that there will come a day that the study of history is entirely subsumed into sociology---it just hasn't gone all the way yet, and history as a science is still in its infancy (even more than the other social sciences).

xander

[Waylon Sachs]

Getting back to The Higgs Boson
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/heres-what-the-higgs-boson-sounds-like/259652/

[Xarlaxas]

I don't know much about the European educational system, but in most American institutions, history has historically (heh) been a part of the humanities with philosophy and the fine arts. It was primarily descriptive, not predictive. This has been slowly changing over the last 40 or 50 years (see, for instance, Howard Zinn and other social historians). As I said, I think that there will come a day that the study of history is entirely subsumed into sociology---it just hasn't gone all the way yet, and history as a science is still in its infancy (even more than the other social sciences).

xander

Aye, at Edinburgh it's the "College of Humanities and Social Sciences" where you get the "School of History, Classics", and Archeology as well as the "School of Social and Political Science" putting them under the same umbrella, effectively, but they are still separate entities, for now. . . .

I look forward to the day that History becomes a part of Sociology, it would make things much more simple, especially seeing as we spent a *lot* of time learning history in Sociology! Said kept on popping up in both Sociology and History, along with Freud and Jung.

(I'm not arguing with you on anything, just reporting my experience of History education seeing as it popped up in the conversation!)

[xander]

Aye, at Edinburgh it's the "College of Humanities and Social Sciences" where you get the "School of History, Classics", and Archeology as well as the "School of Social and Political Science" putting them under the same umbrella, effectively, but they are still separate entities, for now. . . .

I look forward to the day that History becomes a part of Sociology, it would make things much more simple, especially seeing as we spent a *lot* of time learning history in Sociology! Said kept on popping up in both Sociology and History, along with Freud and Jung.

(I'm not arguing with you on anything, just reporting my experience of History education seeing as it popped up in the conversation!)

In most American schools, things are roughly divided into the humanities (history, philosophy, fine arts), the social sciences (anthropology [which includes archaeology over here, but tends to be lumped in with classics in most of Europe], sociology [which, in the French way of thinking, includes anthropology], economics [yeck], psychology, and so on), and the sciences (chemistry, biology, physics, and, for some reason, mathematics).

xander

[Laika]

I see I really lack knowledge of sciences history, so yes, you're right, I can't continue this argue. Though I still think that natural sciences are primary relatively to social.