I assume we all want a more humanitarian society.
Easily disputed. Quite a few are quite comfortable with the shameful level of inequality we now have in the US and in many advanced countries. See Piketty's latest book.
Social science can tell us tons of stuff about a society that we need to do. And the idea it is not a science makes no sens to me.
It's a long standing argument within sociology, anthropology, and political science. Less so in economics and psychology. Lots of arguments. Just a couple. The objects of natural science investigation are not self conscious. Raises lots of issues. And second, it's difficult to impossible to have controlled experiments in social analysis. The usual problems with correlation not the same as causation.
And I have had to take about a full year of statistics for all my social science classes like my degree experimental psychology.
Good for you. And you are the better for it. It means that, unlike more well educated adults, you can actually read a three variable table. That's terrific information, quantitative. But, from a natural science perspective, that doesn't make it science. Just information.
When one writes grants for social programs they always ask for demographics. I consider that social science.
Ditto. Same answer as above. Essential even necessary information. But it's still only information. Lacks the certainty that natural science claims for itself.
What was I learning during my two years of graduate school for an MPA degree at the university of Washington? It sure seemed like social science to me.
A PhD in sociology here. As well as taught at a reasonably prestigious university for more than a few years.
E.g. recent research from Stanford and Columbia and confirmed with MRIs showed that when rich kids are two intellectually, poor kids are only operating at 18 months. And when rich kids are five, poor kids are only operating at three years.
Then they went back to see the variables and found it was the amount of words spoken in the house. So we now know early childhood development is important.
So now we know we need to have free public pre schools to give a leg up
Various variants of that research has been around for some time. Was a staple in intro soc courses at least as far back as the 70s. It says that if the society in question values universal opportunity and sees education as the principle vehicle, or one of the principle ones, not only universal public education is important. But, much more important, that it's substantial.
And so on. |
