Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

The Tyranny of Evidence: Do the social sciences border on being junk science?

#1
C C Offline
http://iainews.iai.tv/articles/the-limit...e-auid-549

EXCERPT: [...] how much one can learn from past financial crises, in thinking about future financial crises. How much, to put it in more general – and philosophical – terms, one can learn inductively. There is plenty one can learn; but there is also a severe limit on what one can learn. There is a limit, in other words, on the value of evidence.

[...] For we are always going to be living in a social world that defies full comprehension and control. A world that we do not and never will fully understand [...] The real challenge, the deep thing that one has to learn, is how best to seek safety for the economy, for citizens, in such a world: in a world that one accepts as a world one cannot predict and control. [...] This is the challenge we face: to learn to live more safely in a world that we are never going to be able to understand or control or even ‘manage’. This entails a ‘letting-go’. But the alternative is worse: that, by seeking to manage, to master, our world, we give ourselves a false assurance that all is going to be well, and make it more likely that we will ‘blow up’.

[...] The Precautionary Principle (PP) states, basically, that, where the stakes are high, a lack of full knowledge or of reliable models – a lack of certainty – should not be a barrier to legitimate precautionary action. We shouldn't, in other words, need certainty, in order to justify protective action. Invoking precaution is thus an alternative to or a complement to invoking evidence. Our contemporary politics, economics, risk-management, medicine and science are all fixated on evidence and on being 'evidence-based’. My argument is that this is dangerous. One can’t have ‘evidence’ of things that haven’t happened yet, nor to any meaningful degree of things that are very rare, nor to any meaningful degree of things dependent upon human decision.

[...] In conclusion:

i) The social world is necessarily partly opaque to social/‘scientific’ knowledge, precisely because it is constituted by human beings, who are intrinsically understanders, intrinsically responsive to efforts to know them, etc.

ii) We need to be less fixated on the evidence, where the human world is concerned, and more determined to take up a precautionary stance. The stakes are high. It would be wrong to gamble, in such a situation. And being ‘evidence-based’, I have shown, is, ironically, being just such a foolish and unethical gambler.

In sum, what’s more reliable than evidence? Precaution....
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Students: another [underlying] facet of why the social sciences can be unreliable? C C 0 199 Sep 13, 2022 04:29 PM
Last Post: C C
  Another STEM field, particle physics, gets woke (not just a social sciences disease) C C 0 184 Sep 6, 2022 03:28 PM
Last Post: C C
  Science publisher retracts 44 papers for being utter nonsense C C 1 79 Nov 7, 2021 03:55 AM
Last Post: Syne
  Biomedical (& social) sciences are riddled with fraud: Real scandal behind ivermectin C C 1 74 Oct 26, 2021 05:16 PM
Last Post: Syne
  Waves of Leftarian junk science knocking on Biden's door C C 0 158 Mar 3, 2021 08:51 AM
Last Post: C C
  Some human sciences still affected by anti-Western, "noble savage" myth propaganda C C 0 118 Feb 9, 2021 06:52 PM
Last Post: C C
  Chris Cuomo taking junk medicine for COVID-19 + Man injects own semen for back pain C C 0 248 Apr 17, 2020 08:03 AM
Last Post: C C
  Scientific American says 5G is dangerous, vegetables are junk food C C 0 243 Oct 23, 2019 03:03 PM
Last Post: C C
  Firm accused of publishing junk science ordered to pay US$50M C C 0 399 Apr 6, 2019 06:20 PM
Last Post: C C
  Eugenics support from "non-white" population groups (history of junk science) C C 5 1,770 Mar 17, 2019 10:50 PM
Last Post: Syne



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)