This article seemed fairly focused on the concept that the social sciences are confronted with serious hurdles in being able to produce any important information. I feel like this refutes numerous real-world social experimental results that have borne out fairly well over the course of decades. However, it does make good points about causal densities.
Is it necessary to have fully controlled experiments to determine any useful information? What is the extent to which statistical information is good enough?
What is another reason there may have been fewer re-arrests after the first in the case of the domestic abuse experiments?
Are the social sciences essentially futile?
I feel like it was important to read this because it gives us a perspective on how fickle our economical axioms are. The article's point is that the social sciences produce often unreliable results. This is how two economists with views totally opposite of each other can both win the nobel prize one after the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment