This question may seem provocative at first glance. Nevertheless, remember Sokal (http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/transgress_v2_noafterword.pdf) and/or Boghossian and Lindsay (https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/conceptual-penis-social-contruct-sokal-style-hoax-on-gender-studies/), who deliberately published silliness in journals to show that social science contributions must in doubt consist only of a collection of modern sounding buzzwords or must simply confirm the opinions of the editors.
Research in the social sciences can obtain generalist results but they are not necessarily valid on an individual scale. It is a positive aspect of humanity diversity.
Publicists and researchers in the social sciences sometimes do not understand scientific facts (in physics for instance) and consider what a well-known natural scientist claims to be true, even if the claim is unfounded and false. Sokal showed that. Conversely, one can show the limits of scientific knowledge if only its methods are to apply in order to form theories of the humanities, especially social, legal or historical theories. This was shown by the disputes at the end of the 19th century about the distinction between natural and cultural sciences (Heinrich Rickert), as well as Wilhelm Diltey ("We explain nature, we understand the life of the soul). This has become part of the history of science today, but it is still important to always keep in mind the limits of the informative value of scientific concepts and methods.
To add two well-known examples of long enduring disputes in the first halft of 20th concerning the claim of (natural) sciences to present overall-theories which should have the legitimace to be applied on social problems: I mention Social-Darwinism, which capitalism justified to stimulate the "overcome of the fittest", another topos at that time was the role of eugenics to reduce handicapped people and criminals.
Social scientists also express opinions and give advice on public issues is of course true, and it is ... can be used in meeting the practical problems of human living
The core nature of being human is hardly fixed in time or person. Nor is it quantifiable in ways that can be generalized to the person. That said, we can see patterns of behaviors, especially reactive strategies that are about protecting the self, that provide insight into what matters and what happens when the person has limited choices. An example of how frustrating it is to understand being human is considering the art of music.
We can listen, study, perform, analyze, review, etc. Still, where is the music? My husband, who is a musician and I am, often says, "You hear the music coming from your headphones or speakers. Yet, if you tore apart the headphones or speakers, would you find the music?
Every general advise you give for people will apply only to a percentage of them. Epidemiology is a very interesting science, because helps to compare person-level science (evidence based medicine or others sciences) with social-level facts.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals