Why social sciences are natural ones (1)

Once upon a time, in a world very far from ours, there were a group of scientists devoted to the study of bacteria, or prokaryotes, who called themselves ‘biologists’, and a different group of researchers, who studied eukaryote organisms, and who received the name of ‘organismologists’. Organismologists were very proud of the obvious differences between their discipline and that of the biologists, and flagged those differences every time they needed to show that organismology was a science wholly independent of biology, completely ‘irreducible’ to it, and who demanded a totally different set of concepts, principles, and research methods, far more significant than the more or less trivial similarities between both disciplines and their objects. After all, this was a matter of common sense: for example, the concept of an ‘organ’ or ‘digestive system’, or the principles of sexual reproduction, do not apply to bacteria save in a very metaphoric sense; indivual organisms of the same species (for example, siblings) have usually great and important differences between them to an extent that bacteria of the same type have not; and also most multicellular organisms, contrarily to prokaryotes, can often be observed and manipulated without the need of very sophisticated instruments. Organismologists accepted, as a matter of course, that eukaryote organisms had evolved millions of years ago from bacteria, that both types of beings shared a common biochemistry and genetics (though much more complex in the case of eukaryotes), and that both types of beings engaged in lots of mutual relations, so strongly that, in general, bacteria are fundamental for the life of eukaryotes, either as prey, as parasites, or as symbionts. But all this was not relevant enough to turn into ashes the obvious truth that the systems in which multicellular organisms (and even unicellular eukaryotes) consisted were so complex and radically different from the simplicity of bacteria, as to deserve a completely independent field for their systematic study. ‘We would not understand anything important about organisms’, leading organismologits used to proclaim, ‘if we were forced to describe them as mere aggregates of individual bacteria… what very probably they are, of course’.

I think that nearly everybody that knows something about biology in our own world would easily realised that organismologists were right in some sense (eukaryotes, and particularly multicellular organisms, are terribly more complex than bacteria, and ‘irreducible’ to these in many ways), but wrong in other sense (their fields of study are not really that ‘heterogeneous’). I shall argue in this series that the situation of social scientists resisting the ‘naturalisation’ of their disciplines is similar to the resistance of organismologists to be considered as just a ‘branch’ of a deeper and more general discipline called ‘biology’: they are right in pointing to the significant differences between ‘social systems’ and ‘(simpler?) living systems’, but these differences do not ground the conclusion that social science is not a ‘natural’ science. I will also try to argue, however, that, due to some features of social systems, the undavoidable ‘naturalistic nature’ of social sciences gives little comfort to those optimists who might have thought that social sciences could turn ‘more scientific’ by recognising their own naturalness. So, my conclusion will be something like acknowledging that, it is not that social sciences ‘should’ be naturalised, but that they are ‘natural sciences’ as they are, but that they probably cannot become significantly more ‘successful’ in an empirical or theoretical sense as they are now.

Naturalism (see, e.g., Ross 2011) is usually seen by many social scientists and philosophers of the social sciences as a frightening menace, and often as a completely wrong and misguided approach. It is usually amalgamated with other philosophical monsters, such as positivism or reductionism, and at times even with ‘realism’ or ‘rationalism’ (forming with them a very poisonous combination often referred to as ‘scientism’). I will discuss in this series the often proclaimed conflict of social, or human, sciences with naturalism, reductionism and positivism, and why I think that social scientists should not worry at all at any of these three supposed Behemoths. Let’s start with positivism. So many horrible things have been said about positivism, that now it passes as a matter of fact that one should not be a positivist; particularly, the story is often told that those sciences, both natural, social or hermeneutic, that tried to rigidly follow the precepts of positivism, ended in something similar to a ‘brain death’ state, with nothing interesting to discover about their realm of study. For many of these critics, as well as for some visionary scientists that tried to apply those precepts, ‘positivism’ seemed to be reducible to the boring inductivist strategy of collecting as many single data one can, and then finding out by mere statistical recounting all the ‘regularities’ those data might happen to exhibit. Of course, no real science actually works in this naively Baconian way, nor most self proclaimed (and much less those merely referred to by others as) ‘positivist’ philosophers, have defended such a caricaturesque idea of the scientific method. But even when a more liberal and benevolent description of the positivist admonitions is adopted, most people in the social sciences still reject that positivism is a sensible methodological approach. Just to take an example of this criticism, consider a paper by Isaac Reed (2010). Reed starts by making a distinction between the ‘context of investigation’ (i.e., what the social scientist does) and the ‘context of explanation’ (i.e., what the social scientist is trying to explain, the object she studies). According to Reed, the basic mistake of what he calls ‘positivism’ is the normative relation that is assumed to exist between both contexts:

Positivism begins with a reduction of the context of investigation to the rules of logic and to a precise language whose meanings are transparent to those in the scientific community who use it. It also proposes that the context of explanation be reduced to that which can be observed—and, to a great degree, that which can be measured. Then, through the process of inductive generalization, covering laws are imported from the context of explanation to the context of investigation. (Reed, 2010, 24; bold font words are original’s italics).

Besides the fact that it seems to be inconsistent to assert that “positivism reduces the context of investigation to the rules of logic and to a precise language” just a few lines after having asserted that “the context of investigation would include both of Reichenbach’s contexts (of discovery and justification)” (my italics), for positivists’ ‘context of discovery’ was explicitly taken as not reducible to logical rules, Reed’s explanation is rather obscure about what the ‘importation’ from one context to the other would consists of. Perhaps this simply means that the regularities that are observed in the ‘context of explanation’ are ‘accepted’ or at least ‘proposed’ in scientific papers or books (but, if it is so, what’s wrong with it?). And Reed makes a caricature of the process of ‘importation’ by reducing it to ‘inductive generalization’, overlooking the essential role of hypotheses and theories, as well as of abductive and analogical methods (that only in the most extreme and unrealistic views of science of some positivist philosophers were considered as illegitimate, if at all). The consideration of hypotheses also allows to see that it is an oversimplification to assert that in the context of explanation only ‘what can be observed’ counts: if by ‘observation’ it is understood exclusively what is observable ‘by the naked eye’, then the assumption is false about how science, even social science, works (for all ‘observation’ is ‘theory laden’, and most data are extremely sophisticated entities; consider, for example, empirical data inflation rates); if, instead, ‘observation’ is taken to mean ‘anything that is intersubjectively detectable by some means’, then one does not see what’s wrong in taking into account only ‘observable’ things in what you want to scientifically describe and explain: is Reed suggesting that social scientists must assert things about which there is absolutely no way to empirically determine whether they are as we are asserting? I doubt it.

References

Reed, I., 2010, “Epistemology Contextualized: Social Scientific Knowledge in a Post-Positivist Era.” Sociological Theory. 28, 61-80.

Ross, D., 2011, “Naturalism: the place of society in nature”, in Jarvie, I., and J. Zamora Bonilla (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Philosophy of Social Sciences, London, Sage, 121-136.

The post Why social sciences are natural ones (1) appeared first on Mapping Ignorance.