Hello José Luis, In my opinion yes, social sciences should probably follow the same methods as the natural sciences. The reason is that the scientific method is the best method we know for arriving at a better understanding of the world around us.

The scientific method, that is followed in natural & physical sciences, starts with an observation and ends up with a conclusion after subjecting the studied objects to experimentation. The system. under consideration, may be made to pass through unusual conditions that differ from the normal ones. The scientist has to be neutral all through the investigation & will just record what is going on even if the testing results are contrary to what s/he anticipated or favored or believed in.

I think that the social studies require another approach that vary from the scientific way. Humans & societies are very complex and a certain observation by scholar (X) will be seen differently by scholar (Y), and will not converge with what (Z) will observe. We cannot subject humans or societies to the experimentation methods that are applied in chemistry, biology, physics, and engineering. There are no equipment that can detect or measure social phenomena, accurately.

It is extremely difficult to rule out or eliminate personal impressions or bias during studies in the social fields. The hands of politics, creeds, and pre-judgment can intervene & direct a certain social study to a previously specified end.

Results & conclusions of natural & physical sciences are more reliable than those which emerge from social studies with due respect to the efforts of social scholars since they are involved in intricate matters with enormous diversities & difficulties.

It seems to me that "a certain observation by scholar (X) will be seen differently by scholar (Y), and will not converge with what (Z) will observe " (as Nizar Matar says) resembles the dependence of research results on the researcher's intention, which the quantum physicists talk about. That is, the natural sciences may be able to prepare for a paradigm shift and get closer to the human sciences

I believe the social "science" become just a science only if we agree that the method of natural sciences is applicable to the social "sciences".

Social science usually lacks the chance to control the variables. As such it resembles Astronomy more than Laboratory research.

Dear: Daniel Gutiérrez Sánchez, Daniela Sorea, Mutasem Z. Bani-Fwaz and Vladimir Valentinovich Egorov

It is praiseworthy and ideal that the perspectives of the natural sciences and the social sciences are close, in order to see and learn more about various facets of scientific knowledge.

• The truth is that the method of empirical-analytic or natural sciences, applied to the social sciences, allows to identify and describe, even measure and analyze, some variables that are controlled according to a quasi-experimental research design.
• But the phenomena and social variables are not usually verified or on a daily basis in the laboratory, but in the field of reality, because its objective is not only to describe, but to transform society. On the other hand, the interest of the Social Sciences is of practical type: Understanding and appropriating the cultural tradition.
• Likewise, and in contrast to the Natural Sciences, in this one, their interest is mainly of a technical nature: Prediction and technical control of processes in the objective world.

regards

Jose Luis

Estimados: Daniel Gutiérrez Sánchez, Daniela Sorea , Mutasem Z. Bani-Fwaz y Vladimir Valentinovich Egorov

Es loable e ideal que las perspectivas de las ciencias naturales y de las ciencias sociales estén cerca, a fin de ver y conocer mejor varias facetas del conocimiento científico.

• Lo cierto es que el método de las ciencias empírico-analíticas o naturales, aplicado a las ciencias sociales, permite a identificar y describir, incluso medir y analizar, algunas variables que se tengan controladas de acuerdo a un diseño de investigación cuasi-experimental.
• Pero los fenómenos y variables sociales no se verifican habitualmente ni en forma cotidiana en el laboratorio, sino en el campo de la realidad, pues su objetivo no es sólo describir, sino transformar a la sociedad. Por otro lado, el interés de las Ciencias Sociales es de tipo práctico: Comprender y apropiarse de la tradición cultural.
• Asimismo, y en contraste con las Ciencias Naturales, en ésta, su interés es principalmente de tipo técnico: Predicción y control técnico de procesos en el mundo objetivo.

Saludos

José Luis

Dear: Nizar Matar, and Jerry Decker

Agree that the variables in the Social Sciences are difficult to control.

• In addition, communication and daily human relations, or even in special events, are carried out in the social field; that is, in the field of social reality, where we usually interact with our peers.
• For this reason, we do not communicate or understand or pass on ethical codes or moral and cultural values in experimental laboratory conditions.
• For what is required in the generation of new knowledge in the Social Sciences, use other methods, such as the Historical Hermeneutics or the Science of Critical Action.

For more information, see the difference of interests between Natural Sciences and Social Sciences, in my previous comment.

regards

Jose Luis

Estimados: Nizar Matar, y Jerry Decker

De acuerdo en que las variables en las Ciencias Sociales son difíciles de controlar.

• Además la comunicación y las relaciones humanas cotidianas, o aún en eventos especiales, se llevan a cabo en el campo social; es decir, en el terreno de la realidad social, donde habitualmente inter-actuamos con nuestros semejantes.
• Por lo mismo, no nos comunicamos ni nos comprendemos o transmitimos códigos éticos o valores morales y culturales en condiciones experimentales de laboratorio.
• Por lo que se requiere en la generación de nuevos conocimientos en las Ciencias Sociales, utilizar otros métodos como el Histórico Hermenéutico o el de las Ciencias de la Acción Crítica.

Para mayor información, ver la diferencia de intereses entre las Ciencias Naturales y las Ciencias Sociales, en mi comentario anterior.

Saludos

José Luis

I think that some people (great scientists and great epistemologists also) named the method used in natural sciences: 'the scientific method'. It is just a name that describe some methods and procedures some disciplines use. It does not mean that other disciplines that do not use experiments are not sciences (just that they are not experimental sciences).

In order to find a general scientific method we have to find more general traits of the scientific process like applying deductive and inductive logic. Then it is up to every scientific discipline to decide what particular methods and procedures are appropriate both with their specific object of knowledge and with the general characteristics of the scientific process.

I think that the natural sciences way of knowledge is not applicable to social sciences and also that this fact does not undermine the social sciences' scientific character.

A further note to show how intricate it was for a scientist to account for a social observable fact & how much it was easier for him to account for a physical scientific phenomenon.

The man observed that a novel isolated substance was soluble in water (similar to table sugar & table salt). He subjected the substance to several experiments to know why it was soluble & reached the conclusion "within few days" that it has characteristics resembling sugar but not salt.

The same man was targeted by immense unabated maltreatment by a boss who reached the top position jump-wise. He tried very hard to understand why by various means (including the scientific angle of rational analysis) but to no avail. The man was admired by many persons, in the firm, for his proficiency, honesty, and straightforwardness which meant that the boss was incapable of proving any wrongdoing.

By mere chance "after 7 years of persecution", a visitor who came to give condolences for the death of the man's father told the man that the boss "secretly" belongs to another religion & another origin to his but pretends to be the opposite. This tip-off gave a social clue which no scientific method can ever reach.

Social science and natural science are all knowledge channels for solving the problems of mankind. Though they have their somehow distinct ontologies and philosophies, I think they should all be regulated by the robust scientific method of research. The path taken by many social scientists in using the rudiments in the field together with those of natural sciences show that the new knowledge generation is envisioned and will throw a very bright light in these modern times.

Natural science methods have its own significance in few of the social sciences domains. However, as Karl Popper said long ago that scientific theories are nets cast to catch some aspects of ‘the world’, it is important to understand the world in both the cases differ significantly. Methods in Natural sciences are expected to generate same results under identical conditions because the targets of investigation e.g. rocks, light, trees etc. have no power of its own to alter their behaviors. Conversely, human beings have agentic power, ability to learn, affect others and get affected from others in idiosyncratic manner. Thus there is every possibility that the same person/group will behave differently other time even if the conditions remain the same.

While scientific method may be useful in some areas of social inquiry, subjecting social phenomena to pure experimental/quasi experimental studies can sometimes be misleading. Scientific belief that ontology can be reduced to epistemology commits what Roy Bhaskar calls epistemic fallacy.

Dear All

The social sciences studied and researched under the scientific method, yield results of limited interest and only in experimental conditions, which prevents their inference and generalization in the real social dynamics.

Such is the case of politics and economics, which studied under the very objective scientific perspective, even with the use of the entire accessible mathematical and statistical tool; since opinion polls and econometrics only legitimize the stable and apparent situation. It does not criticize or question the bases of the reason for said economic policy, and whether it benefits all or only a ruling group or the oligarchy.

regards

Jose Luis

Estimados todos

Las ciencias sociales estudiadas e investigadas bajo el método científico, arrojan resultados de interés limitado y sólo en condiciones experimentales, lo que impide su inferencia y generalización en la dinámica social real.

Tal es el caso de la política y la economía, las cuales estudiadas bajo la perspectiva científica muy objetiva, incluso con el uso de toda la herramienta matemática y estadística accesible; ya que las encuestas de opinión y la econometría, sólo legitiman la situación estable y aparente. No critica ni cuestiona las bases del porqué de dicha política económica, y si esta beneficia a todos o sólo a un grupo gobernante o de la oligarquía.

Saludos

José Luis

The evolution of social sciences shows indeed an interesting trend to adopt the methods developed in theoretical physics. The nice exposition of this topic is in the book by Haven and Khrennikov entitled "Quantum Social Science" available at

http://bacon.umcs.lublin.pl/~lukasik/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/CU.Quantum.Social.Science.1107012821.pdf

Thank you Professor Janusz Pudykiewicz for his contribution and the link to get such an interesting publication

The following reference might be one of useful references for this problem:

Gareau, Frederick H., "Expansion and Increasing Diversification of the Universe of Social Science." International Social Science Journal, v39 n4 p595-606 Nov 1987. "Refutes the very concept of a social science. Observes that the disciplines which study man and society are too heavily characterized by diversity, lack of consensus, and dissonance to be considered sciences. Classifies social science as a "non-science" and considers the term "social studies" to be a more honest and descriptive name to attach to the disciplines."

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ364292

Certainly a stream of basic scientists such as some physicists, mathematicians, chemists, biologists and biochemists; they consider that the social sciences are not science but pseudoscience.

On the contrary, the social scientists of the Circle or School of Frankfur as T. Adorno and J. Habermas, give solid arguments about the other perspective of knowledge, which considers that the purpose of these social and humanistic disciplines, is not to create or discover new knowledge with the Scientific Method; but to understand the texts and interpret their content in a critical way by means of another method, the Hermeneutics.

Sincerely

Jose Luis

Cierto que una corriente de científicos básicos como algunos físicos, matemáticos, químicos, biólogos y bioquímicos; consideran que las ciencias sociales no son ciencia sino pseudociencia.

Al contrario, los científicos sociales del Circulo o Escuela de Frankfurt como T. Adorno y J. Habermas, dan argumentos sólidos respecto de la otra perspectiva del conocimiento, la que considera que el propósito de estas disciplinas sociales y humanistas, no es el crear o descubrir nuevos conocimientos con el Método Científico; sino el de comprender los textos e interpretar su contenido en forma crítica por medio de otro método, la Hermenéutica.

Atentamente

José Luis

I think it depends on how you mathematically model the "question", "hypothesis", and "novelty of knowledge" for social science. Some hypothesis generation approaches may work with social science knowledge base. Take a look at our recent hypothesis generation system for biomedical information

Sybrandt, Shtutman, Safro " MOLIERE: Automatic Biomedical Hypothesis Generation System", KDD 2017

I don't see why such system shouldn't generate a new knowledge in other domains.

Dear Ilya Safro

Very relevant and complete the detailed description of the method that you and two other co-authors developed to support biomedical researchers in the generation of new knowledge; or at least "complete packages" of biomedical information as an excerpt from a huge amount of databases and texts available in knowledge bases (Medline, PubMed, many more).

I give the example of Biomedicine and Clinical Medicine. The task would be almost impossible for a small group of researchers, even following the methodology of Clinical Trials, Meta-analysis and Systematic Reviews.

Now, with the method and tool that you propose within the "Big Data" stream, Data Mining is very useful; and more recently the "Mining of Terms, Concepts and Semantic Fields", would obtain valuable information in the field of Social Sciences.

At the moment there is not much experience in this regard. I would wait a reasonable time, probably years, to fully trust this method for the social sciences, where what is often intended is not only the creation of new knowledge or technological innovation; but the critical reading, correct understanding of what is written, and interpretation of the meaning of the text according to the context or social world in which it is living.

What I am sure of is that the approach to a problem of knowledge in the form of a question is feasible with search engines and computers with artificial intelligence (AI) software, together with the Internet and other AI applications, such as the one that is proposing us; whether they will be a formidable support for biomedical researchers, in order to identify or access novel and original answers to their research questions.

Also, auxiliary to the synthesis of the huge amount of scientific literature published and stored in databases and knowledge bases, as a necessary input required by the biomedical researcher in order to generate hypotheses and take them to the field of verification, using the method and classic procedure of Science.

regards

Jose Luis

PD: Through the following link you get the proposed publication

http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/3100000/3098057/p1633-sybrandt.pdf?ip=201.141.239.30&id=3098057&acc=OPENTOC&key=4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E054E54E275136550&CFID=1021923528&CFTOKEN=21513223&__acm__=1514602892_b9731fbee5dca4c78d6d1622dc8b2642

Estimada Ilya Safro

Muy relevante y completa la descripción a detalle del método que usted y dos coautores más desarrollaron para apoyar a los investigadores biomédicos en la generación de nuevos conocimientos; o al menos "paquetes completos" de información biomédica como un extracto de una cantidad enorme de bases de datos y de textos disponibles en bases de conocimientos (Medline, PubMed; muchos más).

Pongo el ejemplo de la Biomedicina y la Medicina Clínica. La tarea sería casi imposible realizar por un grupo pequeño de investigadores, aun siguiendo la metodologia de Ensayos Clínicos, Metanálisis y Revisiones Sistemáticas.

Ahora con el método y herramienta que ustedes proponen dentro de la corriente de "Big Data" es de gran utilidad la Minería de Datos; y más recientemente la "Minería de Términos, Conceptos y Campos Semánticos”, se obtendría información valiosa en materia de Ciencias Sociales.

De momento no hay mucha experiencia al respecto.Yo esperaría un tiempo razonable, años probablemente, para confiar plenamente en dicho método para las ciencias sociales, donde lo que se pretende frecuentemente no es solo la creación de nuevo conocimiento o la innovación tecnológica; sino la lectura crítica, comprensión correcta de lo que está escrito, e interpretación del sentido del texto de acuerdo al contexto o mundo social en el que se está viviendo.

De lo que si estoy cierto, es que el planteamiento de un problema de conocimiento en forma de interrogante, es factible que con los motores de búsqueda y computadoras con software de inteligencia artificial (IA), junto con internet y otras aplicaciones de IA, como la que nos está proponiendo; si serán un formidable apoyo para los investigadores biomédicos, a fin de identificar o acceder a respuestas novedosas y originales a sus preguntas de investigación.

Asimismo, auxiliar para la síntesis de la enorme cantidad de literatura científica publicada y guardada en bases de datos y bases de conocimientos, como insumo necesario que requiere el investigador biomédico a fin de generar hipótesis y llevarlas al campo de la verificación, mediante el método y procedimiento clásico de la Ciencia.

Saludos

José Luis

PD: A través del siguiente vínculo se obtiene la publicación propuesta

http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/3100000/3098057/p1633-sybrandt.pdf?ip=201.141.239.30&id=3098057&acc=OPENTOC&key=4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E4D4702B0C3E38B35%2E054E54E275136550&CFID=1021923528&CFTOKEN=21513223&__acm__=1514602892_b9731fbee5dca4c78d6d1622dc8b2642

Yes, it may be applicable

Yes

Dear Mahesh Kumar and Ravinder Kumar Sahdev. I appreciate your participation in following up the responses of this important discussion network

According to Ledoux defines natural sciences as “disciplines that deal only with natural events using scientific methods”. While the focus on natural events that differentiates natural from social science.

Ref : https://www.collier.sts.vt.edu/sciwrite/pdfs/boutellier_2011.pdf

Regards

Dr. Kamath Madhusudhana

Dear Madhusudhana Kamath

I agree with you in the clarification Thank you for the link offered, which describes in detail what you have mentioned in summary

regards Jose Luis

I think yes

Best regard

Dear Nour Shakir and Shakir Tuleab

I am pleased to find in you, concordance of my thoughts and approaches that the appropriate scientific method for social variables is capable of generating new knowledge.

regards

Jose Luis

yes

Yes, it may be applicable

Dear Ali A. Al-Homaidan

It would be of interest to those of us who participate in this discussion forum, because he thinks or his arguments on which he bases the doubtfulness of whether the method of the natural sciences is applicable to the social sciences.

José Luis

Dear Nargiza Vaxidova Muxiddin Qizi

True, with its due precautions, the biological sciences method can be applied to the social sciences, especially where objective or intersubjective variables already well characterized at the consensus level are measured and evaluated.

Hi all

After a long creative pause of 8 months, I comment and conclude the following:

• The scientific method is as applicable in the biological sciences as in the social sciences
• The only differences are that most of the variables in the social sciences are qualitative and, therefore, in many cases, in order to continue research with a high degree of validity, measurement and evaluation instruments appropriate to the type of variables have to be created. .
• Once a measurement instrument has been built, it must be validated and its reliability found through specific methodological research for this purpose.
• Hence, then, the scientific method applied to the social sciences is also qualified as a "qualitative method"; but sometimes, to the qualitative applies in certain investigations of biology, such as the case of animal behavior.

regards

José Luis