Add a Comment   Back to OJB's Blog Search Page

The Social Sciences

Entry 2369, on 2024-10-25 at 12:18:53 (Rating 2, Skepticism)

Summary

While not all social scientists deserve criticism, the extreme views of some can tarnish the entire field. Postmodernist doctrines, like critical theory, have led to an imbalance in research, lacking rationality and scientific principles. Additionally, the replication crisis and lack of academic rigor in the social sciences are concerning. Anecdotal evidence of left-leaning ideologies dominating the field raises questions about bias. Despite the academic work being potentially valid, public statements from social scientists promoting controversial ideologies pose a danger to society. While not all social scientists may fit this mold, these issues contribute to my skepticism of the field.

Full Text

My friend EK (a frequent commenter on this blog, and one who often debates me, thanks!) has challenged me regarding my disdain for the social sciences, and fair enough too. I often make derogatory remarks about them but rarely offer a lot of justification, so why not write a blog post explaining my thoughts? Challenge accepted!

First, I have got to state what should be obvious but often isn't: that is that not all social scientists are worthy of my criticism. In the same way as not all feminists, or BLM supporters, or even woke people are a major problem, it is mainly the activist fringe from these groups which might make the group look bad as a whole. And this reminds me of a clever quip: it is just 99% of lawyers who give the rest a bad name. I think this could apply to many other groups, including computer consultants!

Of course, that number is completely random and I cannot justify it, but I think we can agree that the extreme members of many professions, political groups, etc can make the rest look bad. I should also say that I am not involved in social science and don't read the literature in the relevant journals, so it could be that all the research being done is above reproach, but I doubt it.

So after all of this material apparently moderating my previous attitude, what actually is the source of my criticism? OK, let's list these...

First, as I have said on many occasions, it is the results of postmodernist doctrine, including critical theory, which has been pushed in universities primarily in the social sciences, which is the cause of many of the problems we have today. I cannot forgive this blatant disregard for balance, rationality, and scientific principles, so I sort of have a grudge against the social sciences as a result.

Second, the academic rigour of the social sciences seems to be often lacking. There is the replication crisis, which started in psychology but also affects many other areas of academia. There is the fact that so few papers have any citations and are just basically ignored. There is the lack of criticism of submitted papers revealed by incidents like the Sokal Hoax (that's something worthy of a blog post in itself).

Then there are the anecdotes. A friend of mine, who often works in universities, has spotted the following posters in a social sciences area: "Fight Racism and Islamophobia" and "Marxism: Ideas to Challenge the System" and "Marxism: System Change not Climate Change" and "Radical Ideas: Feminism for the 99%" and "Aotearoa Climate Strike" and "Seeing Trans Feminist Futures in Self-Representational Art" and "Gay Nazis? Exploring Tensions in Political Identities" and "Te Tiriti Based Futures.".

Now people have the right to advertise whatever ideology they want, but there wasn't a single poster promoting center or right politics, or the advantages of capitalism, or the successes of Western culture. It was all far left BS, and yes, this really is BS in my opinion (I mean, you've got to laugh: Gay Nazis. Really?)

Academics are overwhelmingly left wing. A survey in the US showed 100% of anthropologists, 98% of sociologists, and 95% of historians were Democrat supporters. The lowest proportion was for engineers at "just" 62%, but the really high numbers were all for people in the humanities and social sciences.

Finally there is the real reason I find the social sciences problematic. It is not their work in academic journals, but their public pronouncements which are dangerous. I mean, very few people read academic papers, and if you believe the rate of citation maybe nobody does! But comments in the media from "experts" have more effect on your society, and that is where the real danger is.

Listen to an alleged expert on TV discuss social issues and you will hear the usual drivel about decolonisation, the patriarchy, white privilege, and all the other mindless nonsense these idiots spout. Look at their research (in my case, I admit in a superficial way) and you will see no data supporting this. For example, if a "minority" group has poor health outcomes that will always be attributed to systemic racism and never to cultural issues in the group under consideration. This is ideology, not science.

So for any good social scientist who reads this blog, I apologise for maybe insinuating that everyone in your profession is the same. Of course that isn't true. Maybe you're one of the good ones, just like I am one of the few good IT consultants, but I hope you can see where my general frustration with social science comes from!

Comment 1 (7742) by EK on 2024-10-27 at 15:00:12:

First, thanks for responding to my challenge. Second, I am not sure I really want to respond, not because you have not recanted (about the social sciences), but because to really do justice to the subject matter it would have to be a book. And after having published 13 I have no taste for yet another one – not on this topic anyway.

But briefly, here is a miscellany of comments to show that I am not ignoring your effort.

For some the crux of science and what is valuable lies is accumulating “facts” (in the positivist sense) that seem to work in “the real world”; that’s ok, but then there is a side of science tasked “to make people think” and to explore anything that is thinkable, which I believe has its place too. In other words, epistemological advance is not only finding out what works but also to become aware of alternatives and possibilities, relativities of cherished assumptions, etc., in short a recognition of the value of ideas sui generis. What makes us human is ideation, the quality formation of thoughts and ideas – not genes; we share a lot of genes with a fruit fly and 98% with chimps or something like that. Only the genus Homo theorises about the human condition, no animal does. Only Homo philosophises, devises social theories, constructs phantasies like myths and novels, and theologises. Higher animals think in practical terms, but only humans theorise about themselves and their behaviour. To dismiss as irrelevant a whole fundamental mental capacity (as condensed in social sciences and humanities) that defines us as humans is breathtakingly short-sighted, to phrase it politely.

I know, to make people think about themselves is not always appreciated though: Socrates was executed for making people think by way of unorthodox, awkward – and on the surface maybe stupid – questions. Basic rule: Always dig a level deeper. For instance, in response to my critique (anti-vaxxers also are sceptics) you say “scepticism can be abused” and leave it at that as if this would explain anything. I suppose you mean this is bad, wrong or misplaced scepticism, and not the kind of scepticism you advocate as beneficial. Have you wondered let alone analysed what is “abuse” in this context? What constitutes the dividing line between the right application of scepticism and the wrong one? Semantics is not always an explanation, let alone an analysis.

It depends where your intellectual itch is being scratched. Take the meaning of freedom (important for instance in defining it legally): It is bound up with the issue of slavery (among other things) and by extension moral culpability. No surprise that it came up at the recent CHOGM in Samoa. And I understand – and agree – why Keir Starmer refused to accept liability. Always re-litigating the past should be secondary in my view to looking forward and trying harder to make this a better world (according to globally agreed upon modern values). But knowing and interpreting the past is important, (even if you dismiss it, you should know what you are dismissing as irrelevant) and in this case knowing the full story about slavery should be part of the baseline of a consideration of what human freedom means. Critical race theory may seem stupid and utterly biased but makes sense in the context of (anti-)colonialism and without this a comprehension of what is happening in Palestine and about Palestine – for instance – is not possible. Without what is being argued about in the social sciences the carnage in Gaza would probably be considered unremarkably normal. And on it goes in endless exploration. Don't tell me such explorations are useless and irrelevant.

Some ideas assume agency. That may be good or bad, depending on your taste. Gender theory may annoy you, but can decide whether people are considered sick, or perhaps so sick that they have to be institutionalised, or even criminalised. You’d rather not talk about it, or hear about it? For some people this could be important.

Have you ever considered that the sinuous dialectical approach to issues may have its uses? For instance by recognising that binary contrasts are needed. The obvious: You need evil to have a sense of good, and alas you need stupid to recognise smart. You need definitional dichotomies, antinomies, paradoxes, alternatives and in that sense you need “divergent” views. Transposed to another level, the diversity of views (including “stupid” ones) is valuable even necessary for full comprehension. The golden rule (do unto others …) is not the all-encompassing answer; or slightly varied: the way I think is the norm, everything else is abnormal, contrary to good reason and should be banned. There is usefulness in having a wide variety of views available in exploring issues. E.g., Rejecting Marxism is ok, but Marxism has taught us that an overfull measure of what superficially might seem a good thing (egalitarianism, collective betterment over boundless individualism, idealism over profit motif, etc.) does not work, at least not in a competitive global environment.

On the other hand, Have you wondered why such a large percentage of social scientists, as you list, are “left-wing”? Because rationally they have grasped that near-egalitarian societies work better, societies with fairer distribution of wealth have less social disruption, etc, and these are practical values not moral values which may be more arguable.

What a boring world it would be without our colourful social sciences; and an issue less my friend could moan about.

And a final information. There are studies (published in PloSOne and Nature Human Behaviour) that point out that the people least informed about science have the worst attitudes towards it as well as thinking that they know it all anyway.

At this point I rest my case. Free speech rules! This at least is where we agree.

Comment 2 (7743) by OJB on 2024-10-27 at 15:44:10:

Well thanks for that comment. Maybe I didn't make my attitude clear. I have nothing against philosophical concepts like critical theory being explored, and I encourage all approaches to be added into the mix of what we are discussing. My problem is that it often seems that those ideas take over and both don't get sufficiently critiqued and stifle alternatives.

For example, it appears that in universities there are some ideas which just cannot be discussed. Look at the number of cancellations which we have seen in recent years as evidence of this. As I said in the post, my friend saw a lot of material covering one side of the debate and absolutely nothing, zero, covering the alternatives, even though in many people's opinions the other side has at least as much merit.

When was the last time you saw an academic on TV promote the idea that colonialism had some positive effects on indigenous people, for example. That would be never, right? Same with the benefits of capitalism, the positives of Western culture, etc. Nothing positive at all.

So I would never say that the views I disapprove of should not be expressed, but I would say I want to see some balance. The social sciences don't seem to have that balance, and that's not surprising given the political bias I also documented in the post.

Finally, I have nothing against social sciences per se, but I do have a problem with how they work in the modern academic environment. Does that make sense?

Comment 3 (7744) by EK on 2024-10-28 at 14:12:47:

OK. No disagreement with that. This sounds a bit different from the earlier wholesale condemnation of social sciences.

Comment 4 (7745) by OJB on 2024-10-28 at 15:36:35:

Well, that's why I appreciate feedback from people whose opinions I respect: it gives me a chance to clarify my opinion, or even change it. I never meant to condemn all social science; I even said, early on in the post, this: "I have got to state what should be obvious but often isn't: that is that not all social scientists are worthy of my criticism.".

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

Enter your name (optional):
Enter your email address (optional):
Enter the number shown here:
Enter the comment:

To add a comment: enter a name and email (optional), type the number shown, enter a comment, click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.