UG#2: Can social scientists produce reliable knowledge about the world, and if so, how? (CVA)
What does the analogy to gas molecules reveal about the possibility of making reliable claims about people in the human sciences?
That it is easier to make claims (what kinds of claims?) about many people than about individuals in the human sciences
Human scientists are often/usually looking for patterns, and patterns fall into this category of general claims
These claims, in order to be accepted, have to be supported (have to be testable and supported by evidence)
What would make these claims reliable or unreliable?
Their degree of truth/falsity; degree of support through evidence that comes from testing; whether or not they are reviewed by a peer referee
They could be unreliable when applied to individuals (if we are applying general claims to individuals)
Change? Does this factor influence the reliability of knowledge in the human sciences?
There are lots of variables that change, and that affect the change of individuals: their era, their culture, etc.
Is it possible that cultural structures/expectations can supply "axioms" that give general laws for behavior?
We learned that the only AOK that can give us certainty is mathematics, and so perhaps we seek to express scientific claims in mathematical terms to try to capture some of that certainty.
But trying to capture ideas about the natural world in mathematical terms STILL can't give us the same degree of certainty as math: there's the possibilty that the we structure experiments/observations correctly, or that random chance intervenes.
Can something be reliable but not certain?
If you need 100% certainty for reliability, then science isn't reliable.
But on the other hand, we don't have the option of certainty, and we don't have an alternative to science that is as good as it is.
We as individuals change because our thoughts change, among other reasons. Actions follow thoughts.
There are lots of natural systems that are also super variable -- is there something unique about human sciences in this respect?
Arguably, free will
there are so many influences that the test subject has on the results, particularly when they are aware that they are being studied
Meaning and purpose
Sometimes people do things for no apparent reason, which might lead researchers to mistakenly ascribe some purpose/meaning to actions that isn't there.
Human "stuff" (behaviors, concepts, creations) are all imbued with meaning -- they all are saturated with meaning. They take place in a broader context that humans perceive as meaningful. Scientists have to try to account for that.
If you study humans in general, you notice patterns. These patterns seem to describe our behaviors pretty well, and they also allow us to make predictions at the general level (and maybe at the individual level too).
Everything changes all the time, so what would be unique about the human sciences in this respect? It plays a minimal role in affecting the reliabilty of knowledge.
Moreover, science itself changes over time -- in part to accomodate new evidence, and in part because the world is always changing. This might actually make it more reliable; we change, and the human sciences change too, meaning that knowledge keeps pace with the world.
Statistical significance and mathematical methods offer us a means for determining whether a claim is reliable or not, even if it isn't certain
But on the other hand, "What's the point of building higher, if you're building on sand?"
At least it's something, though...without this, we wouldn't have any knowledge.
Also, building on sand provides some foundation -- it's not like we're starting at zero. Sand is a reasonably good foundation, especially if we are aware that we are building on sand.