Nah. I stand by my original neanderthal statement. I don't believe the choice is between "studies" and ignorance. I don't believe that we are destined to live short brutish lives from which we can only be saved by social science.
>Is there some sloppy social science research? Sure. But we need to
>apply thoughtful criteria to evaluate the research, not simply reject
>it because it's social science. By the logic Joanna applies above,
>she should be skeptical of physics because of that cold fusion fiasco
>a few years ago.
We have deified the scientific process at the expense of everything. If somebody shows me a "study," I feel like I need to know everything about who did it, why they did it, what their backgrounds were, what their assumptions were, and much, much more, before I credit a single "finding." What most people call science and social science, I see as mythology pursuing a certain academically-determined ritual.
I am deeply skeptical about everything that claims to trump frail humanity.
>To apply a cliche, let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
>We can learn interesting and important stuff by studying the social
>world.
I am not objecting to the study/observation of the social world. I am only objecting to the idea that there is an exclusive method by which we do that which guarantees the soundness of our findings.
Joanna