On Social Sciences

April 19, 2003
by C. S. Wyatt

Social scientists want to convince you they know universal truths. They want you to believe they have answers. The social scientists, the politicians, and the philosophers work with certainty, knowing they are better educated, more aware, and correct in their assumptions about mankind. In reality, they are historians and scribes, masquarading as scientists.

Do not misunderstand. I think social studies are important and valuable predictors of trends. However, science implies something more to me.

The political scientists and social scientists have more influence today because we respect science. Philosophers do not generally refer to themselves as “scientists.” Using the word “science” in conjunction with anything that depends on the study of human behavior seems the height of conceit. It is merely a rhetorical device to convince both the practioner and the public that some scientific principals are at work in the research.

I beg to differ, having taken courses on behavioral science and statistics. Polling and charting trends are not science. They do have mathematical validity, true value, and deserve respect… but they are not science.

Dictionaries define science so broadly as to allow any form of study the disctinction of science. One dictionary I consulted discussed the “science” of theology, the “science” of baseball, and the “science” of countless other non-scientific activities. By applying such a broad definition, science loses its weight in public discourse. People trust science to be about testing and retesting theories. Science is lab work, research, and peer review.

We tend to toss about words with reckless abandon. Genuis, for example, is applied to people with one or two exceptional skills. We waste words, diminishing them. Science is a diminished word in need reclamation.

Political science has long troubled me. What is the science? I read books, look at charts, and struggle to understand how we can test politics. Political movements are psychological, I admit, but are political scientists also psychologists? To some degree, depending on the university, they are exposed to elementary psychology, but no enough to qualify as scientists.

No insult is intended. Studies of the past, predicting trends, and offering opinions remains valuable.

Can we predict the future of cultures? Can we predict election results? Sometimes.

This complaint might be mine alone. I could be the only person wondering why “science” is everything, making every college graduate a “scientist” in some manner. To me, it is an insult to those poor souls mastering lab work and advanced calculus. Liberal studies are easier — I admit it. There is something inherently more demanding in a pursuit of science. Meeting those higher demands deserves respect.

Mail comments and suggestions to: cswyatt@tameri.com

These works may be reproduced mechanically or electronically in whole or part on the condition that the author is acknowledged as C. S. Wyatt. These works may not be modified.