After all, the social world is a messy place and we are never going to reach conclusions with certainty, like the laws of physics. What are the pros and cons of trying to “scientifically” study a subject that is almost inherently subject to different interpretations?
It's worth may be limited to disabusing us of illusions. Alex Rosenberg has argued that the work of a number of Nobel Prize winning neuroscientists reveals that the ‘‘theory of mind‘‘ employed in everyday life and narrative history has no basis in the organization of the brain, that the belief-desire-intention mode of explanation in narrative history is merely a tool that arose during Hominini evolution to foster cooperation over the near future among small numbers of individuals in immediate contact, but whose predictive weakness beyond this domain reveals its explanatory emptiness.
- https://www.amazon.com/How-History-Gets-Things-Wrong/dp/0262537990/ref=monarch_sidesheet
- https://social-epistemology.com/2020/05/27/review-how-history-gets-things-wrong-by-alex-rosenberg-matthew-goodrum/
Qualitative experiments may help, but maybe statistics do help. Surveys or even mathematical approaches. Studies of the mind might also help.
In such a case, the research methodology would be a serious problem.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Programming Languages
- Python