Sunday, April 23, 2006
Evolving Political Science
Thomas Kuhn's perspective on science was that of a physicist when he wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Most physicists - and other physical scientists - that I have known are fairly disdainful of social sciences. They are not certain that they are real sciences at all. I suspect political science would be close to the bottom of the list for validity. As cognitive science develops, social sciences are firming up. There is a likelihood that sometime - certainly within my lifetime - that the social sciences will be much closer to the physical sciences in scientific practice and validity.
For the most part, the social sciences follow the same general practices that the physical sciences do. They suffer from the problem that their object of study is always something that revolves around humans - a very complex system - a system of systems, really. Most of what's been done to date seems to suffer from idealism to me. Social scientists hypothesize the way they wish things were, and then set out to prove that it's true. Not enough objective observation precedes the hypothesis. Too much morality gets involved. It seems very little benefit has been gleaned from social science so far - at least as compared with the astonishing achievements of the physical sciences. This tells me that we haven't really discovered much that's real so far.
Fifteen years ago, I had this "brilliant idea". I was going to become a sociologist and bring the power of computer science to sociology. I would model things. I would collect data and data mine it. Of course, there are commercial companies that do that now and use it for business - mostly advertising. But I was going to do this to prove hypotheses. I took a college class in sociology - my first - The Theory of Society. It was in this class and from that very kind professor that I learned that academic sociologist cared mostly about arguing about what dead people meant when they wrote old books. It was very clear that I would have an uphill battle and would be mostly unwelcome.
I suspect that things have not changed much - just yet. But I suspect they will. I am reading a book right now Political Reasoning and Cognition, A Piagetian View by Rosenberg, Ward, and Chilton. I am only just starting, but already the book is clearly an example of Kuhnian revolution in action - in political science. One quote I think illustrates the experience of the authors on the front lines:
They are challenging a dominant mindset of political science - that all individuals come with more or less the same mental modeling capability - and share the same models. This makes political science the study of these models themselves - how they are acquired and interrelate, their effects, etc. Rosenberg, et al, say the evidence does not support his idea. They think it's too simplistic. If people don't have the same modeling capability, then you have to study the cognitive capabilities for political thought to understand politics. Not all people are created equal - cognitively. This is really a pretty obvious, but profound, idea. I am still digesting it. It's one of those paradigm shifts that will cause mental dislocation if you really get it.
In my opinion, all the social sciences are truly suffering from the dogma of equality at this time in history. It is not acceptable to pose any theory that includes inherent differences in mental or interpersonal skills between people. To me, this seems ludicrous - akin to saying the sun must go around the earth. It's wishful thinking. Much as we all wish it were true, it is requires much self-brainwashing to believe it. And it is a belief - not a scientific hypothesis that can stand up to rigorous testing. This idea has only taken hold in any serious way for the last fifty years or so. And very little progress has been made because of it. Cognitive science and genetics are beginning to break it down. It's going down hard, though.
So, what's the prognosis for the social sciences? They will still be a daunting challenge, since humans, human groups and cultural practices are complex, interactive, and evolve very quickly using memes - at least relative to the physical sciences. Nonetheless, I think a lot of progress will have been made fifty years from now. Genetics will lead the way. Better understanding of the brain - especially systems theory views - will also help. It's hard to imagine how this will change the world. We have so little to go by as an example. While the theory has evolved a lot over the last 50 years, and people will argue that progress has been made - we are not seeing tangible results. Crime is not lower. People are not happier. Children are not doing better in school. Marriages are not more successful. We are still blowing each other up. Arguing at each other on talk shows. Hating. Anyone that says they know the "right way" to raise children or manage is lying. Ask for the evidence.
Thomas Kuhn's perspective on science was that of a physicist when he wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Most physicists - and other physical scientists - that I have known are fairly disdainful of social sciences. They are not certain that they are real sciences at all. I suspect political science would be close to the bottom of the list for validity. As cognitive science develops, social sciences are firming up. There is a likelihood that sometime - certainly within my lifetime - that the social sciences will be much closer to the physical sciences in scientific practice and validity.
For the most part, the social sciences follow the same general practices that the physical sciences do. They suffer from the problem that their object of study is always something that revolves around humans - a very complex system - a system of systems, really. Most of what's been done to date seems to suffer from idealism to me. Social scientists hypothesize the way they wish things were, and then set out to prove that it's true. Not enough objective observation precedes the hypothesis. Too much morality gets involved. It seems very little benefit has been gleaned from social science so far - at least as compared with the astonishing achievements of the physical sciences. This tells me that we haven't really discovered much that's real so far.
Fifteen years ago, I had this "brilliant idea". I was going to become a sociologist and bring the power of computer science to sociology. I would model things. I would collect data and data mine it. Of course, there are commercial companies that do that now and use it for business - mostly advertising. But I was going to do this to prove hypotheses. I took a college class in sociology - my first - The Theory of Society. It was in this class and from that very kind professor that I learned that academic sociologist cared mostly about arguing about what dead people meant when they wrote old books. It was very clear that I would have an uphill battle and would be mostly unwelcome.
I suspect that things have not changed much - just yet. But I suspect they will. I am reading a book right now Political Reasoning and Cognition, A Piagetian View by Rosenberg, Ward, and Chilton. I am only just starting, but already the book is clearly an example of Kuhnian revolution in action - in political science. One quote I think illustrates the experience of the authors on the front lines:
“Empirical research depends on concepts and theory. No matter how careful the methods and sophisticated the statistical analysis, research can be no better than the theory which directs it.… For the most part, reviews of empirical research focus on technical issues of data collection and analysis and ignore larger questions of conceptualization. This is frequently the case even when the results of the research are confusing and the ensuing methodological critique and tinkering fail to yield a satisfactory understanding. As a result, one of the key aims of empirical research, the challenging of a prevalent theory, is blocked.”
They are challenging a dominant mindset of political science - that all individuals come with more or less the same mental modeling capability - and share the same models. This makes political science the study of these models themselves - how they are acquired and interrelate, their effects, etc. Rosenberg, et al, say the evidence does not support his idea. They think it's too simplistic. If people don't have the same modeling capability, then you have to study the cognitive capabilities for political thought to understand politics. Not all people are created equal - cognitively. This is really a pretty obvious, but profound, idea. I am still digesting it. It's one of those paradigm shifts that will cause mental dislocation if you really get it.
In my opinion, all the social sciences are truly suffering from the dogma of equality at this time in history. It is not acceptable to pose any theory that includes inherent differences in mental or interpersonal skills between people. To me, this seems ludicrous - akin to saying the sun must go around the earth. It's wishful thinking. Much as we all wish it were true, it is requires much self-brainwashing to believe it. And it is a belief - not a scientific hypothesis that can stand up to rigorous testing. This idea has only taken hold in any serious way for the last fifty years or so. And very little progress has been made because of it. Cognitive science and genetics are beginning to break it down. It's going down hard, though.
So, what's the prognosis for the social sciences? They will still be a daunting challenge, since humans, human groups and cultural practices are complex, interactive, and evolve very quickly using memes - at least relative to the physical sciences. Nonetheless, I think a lot of progress will have been made fifty years from now. Genetics will lead the way. Better understanding of the brain - especially systems theory views - will also help. It's hard to imagine how this will change the world. We have so little to go by as an example. While the theory has evolved a lot over the last 50 years, and people will argue that progress has been made - we are not seeing tangible results. Crime is not lower. People are not happier. Children are not doing better in school. Marriages are not more successful. We are still blowing each other up. Arguing at each other on talk shows. Hating. Anyone that says they know the "right way" to raise children or manage is lying. Ask for the evidence.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]