Something I try to get across to my students is that just because everyone has an opinion on the criminal justice system, it doesn't mean informed scientific research on the subject is useless.
You see, people tend to think the physical sciences are "real" sciences, in which experiments build upon past knowledge and discover the laws that control our universe (as opposed to the social sciences, which are just a bunch of egg-heads sitting around making stuff up). But as any researcher will tell you, the "hard" sciences have no more hard and fast hold on the truth than social scientists do; it's still pretty much a guessing game for everyone.
I, for one, think this comes from the fact that the basics of social science are far easier to understand, thus making everyone feel qualified to comment on them, regardless of their (lack of) knowledge regarding the situation. For example, it's pretty easy for any Joe off the street to question your recommendation for new policing policies, because they know what the police are and probably have some opinion on what they should do. Contrast this with string theory, when few people are probably going to argue with their physics prof about the fundamental matter of the universe because one time their uncle had a bad experience with Einsteinian philosophies of matter and gravitation.
However, as the good folks over at Scatterplots point out, if you measure it in terms of cumulative knowledge and replicability of findings, there's no measurable difference between the "hard" and social sciences.
Far be it from me to make this more sociological by suggesting that it might be our culture-wide worship of technology and scientific progress, rather than actual research findings, that make the "hard" sciences appear more reputable, but I'll let you form your own opinion on that...
No comments:
Post a Comment