Showing posts with label Social Sciences. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Sciences. Show all posts
How Do Conservatives And Liberals See The World?
Moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt discusses politics, social psychology and morality with Bill Moyers.
Religion Is A Natural Phenomenon
Here is a classic video from 2006 with Dan Dennett discussing religion as a natural phenomenon and rebutting Rick Warren's Purpose-Driven Life.
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion?
Nigel Barber has written an article for Psychology Today in which he gives evidence for the hypothesis that atheism will replace religion. Is he being too optimistic? This blogger thinks that the world will have to be virtually entirely peaceful and prosperous for this dream to happen.
Religiosity And Happiness
Tom Rees has posted on the results of a research study looking at the level of religiosity and happiness. The findings may surprise you.
Can Money Make You Happy?
Bob Frick has written an article in Kiplinger analyzing the relationship of money, and other factors, to happiness.
The Wisdom Of Penn Jillette
Penn Jillette discusses politics, politicians, American history, religion and atheism in this 20-minute video. This blogger rates Jillette as one of the top thinkers in the freethought community. Enjoy.
Inequality Makes Us Less Happy
Mano Singham has posted on a recent study suggesting that inequality makes us less happy. Empathy wins over self-interest. Too bad politicians are so anti-science --- otherwise, this study would have some impact.
The True History of America And Thankgiving?
Mitchel Cohen has written a very lengthy and troubling history of the Americas, to include our traditional Thanksgiving. Not being an historian, this blogger thinks it is unwise to make any conclusions on the validity of what is written in this piece.
The Ultimate World Crisis?
The Guardian has posted a lengthy and in-depth article on the population explosion. Anyone interested in the full spectrum of opinions concerning the problems and the solutions involved with this issue will find important information in the article.
Social Sciences
How should the skeptic look at the social sciences? How are they like the natural sciences? How are they different?
The natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry, biology and medicine, have been colloquially termed the "hard" sciences, as they are perceived as being more scientific, rigid and accurate. The social sciences, such as anthropology, archaeology, history, sociology, economics and political science, may use methods resembling those of the natural sciences (quantitative techniques) as tools for understanding society and they may use social critique or symbolic interpretation as well (qualitative techniques). Thus, the social sciences have been colloquially termed the "soft" sciences, as they are perceived as being less scientific, rigid and accurate.
From an analysis of the differences in acceptance of results from these two broad branches of science, a case can be made that there is a greater consensus of expert opinion regarding the issues addressed by the natural sciences as compared to the amount of consensus within the social sciences.
What does the above mean? The less scientifically "hard" the field of study, the greater the chance of a difference of opinion and, thus, the greater the chance that non-evidence based ideology will play a role. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that an individual with an economic or political point of view, for example, would be wise to avoid being too dogmatic, rigid and/or extreme in that view.
It is this blogger's opinion that society would be more peaceful and respectful if individuals would take the above to heart and be more skeptical about their certainty in the areas addressed by the social sciences. Humility, which includes self-understanding and awareness, openness, and perspective taking, can be a virtue.
The natural sciences, such as physics, chemistry, biology and medicine, have been colloquially termed the "hard" sciences, as they are perceived as being more scientific, rigid and accurate. The social sciences, such as anthropology, archaeology, history, sociology, economics and political science, may use methods resembling those of the natural sciences (quantitative techniques) as tools for understanding society and they may use social critique or symbolic interpretation as well (qualitative techniques). Thus, the social sciences have been colloquially termed the "soft" sciences, as they are perceived as being less scientific, rigid and accurate.
From an analysis of the differences in acceptance of results from these two broad branches of science, a case can be made that there is a greater consensus of expert opinion regarding the issues addressed by the natural sciences as compared to the amount of consensus within the social sciences.
What does the above mean? The less scientifically "hard" the field of study, the greater the chance of a difference of opinion and, thus, the greater the chance that non-evidence based ideology will play a role. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that an individual with an economic or political point of view, for example, would be wise to avoid being too dogmatic, rigid and/or extreme in that view.
It is this blogger's opinion that society would be more peaceful and respectful if individuals would take the above to heart and be more skeptical about their certainty in the areas addressed by the social sciences. Humility, which includes self-understanding and awareness, openness, and perspective taking, can be a virtue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)