The author is Kristin Luker and the subtitle is Research in an Age of Info-Glut. I enjoyed this book very much and I thought it was one of the best books on the philosophy of the social sciences I have read, ever. In part it is good because it ignores philosophy of science (and Continental philosophy gobbledy-gook) and focuses on the anthropology of how research is actually done. Here is the author's summary of her message
Let's review the state of play. I've told you that "methods" in the social sciences are historically, socially, and politically located in both time and place. I've also told you that the methods most commonly taught (canonical social science, "normal science") grew out of a particular time and place, namely postwar America. I've tried to convince you that in this new postmodern, globalizing world, those old methods don't work as well as they used to, at least not for the kinds of problems that most of us are interested in these days. Finally, I have argued that a whole set of "practices," that is, taken-for-granted ways of doing things that aren't even at the level of consciousness most of the time, grew out of those old methods and now must be rethought by those of us whose contributions will consist of making connections across boundaries, rather than following the normal-science way of making incremental contributions to a deep but narrow part of our fold.
There's much more to the book than that quotation indicates. Recommended.
Judging from your quote, she does view things through the lenses of her particular philosophy (post-modern something I think).
It’s so true, philosophy of science is worthless unless of course it’s Popper. Stephen Hawking likes Popper, and what is economics if not the physics of the social sciences? I need to read some Popper.
[Reads Popper]
Uh oh, seems Popper’s philosophy implies that economics is a pseudo-science like marxism or psychoanalysis (according to Popper real science doesn’t make unfalsifiable assumptions).
But wait! There’s this person called Deirdre McCloskey, and she says that economics is a science. Except she’s a postmodernist who doesn’t believe that science reveals truth, tries to analyze economics as if it were literature, and has the uncanny ability to bore and annoy simultaneously.
Damn you philosophy of science! You’ve won this round, but I’ll win the war by never reading you again and ignoring anything you have to say. After all, the proof is in the putting and look at how successful macroeconomics has been recently… except… doh!
“Methods are historically located … in both time and place.”
That’s undeniable. Certainly one can look at ANOVA designs and clearly see the influence of agricultural problems [split-plot designs being the obvious example].
It’s also meaningless, as well as undeniable. Bill Bryson’s “A Short History of Nearly Everything” makes it clear that great scientists of the past had a variety of quirks and craziness, but yet their contributions — their real ones, which validated — survive. That’s the nature of science versus, say, religion.
These two sentences, in particular, are portentiously expressed trivialities: “I’ve told you that ‘methods’ in the social sciences are historically, socially, and politically located in both time and place. I’ve also told you that the methods most commonly taught (canonical social science, ‘normal science’) grew out of a particular time and place, namely postwar America.” Everything that comes into existence has a spatio-temporal location, and so it arises in a particular time and place. Similarly for everything that grows. (Presumably, the ‘methods’ to which the author refers are *concreta* of some sort rather than [non-spatio-temporal] *abstracta*.)
Wow. Assumptions and ignorance abound in this post and thread.
(1) Tyler, go and read some David Stove. He made a distinction between philosophy of science and sociology of science, which is what you refer to as the “anthropology” of science. Also, the fact that you meshed philosophy of science together with “continental philosophy” shows a bit of ignorance. The reasons for your ignorance are that firstly, the two areas are worlds apart. Philosophy of science is dominated by analytical types, thus having a divide with the continentalists. Secondly, “science studies,” which is what Luker’s book is about, is generally associated with the said goobledegook that you bagged out before hand, which many of the posters here have pointed out.
(2) k, the reason Popper said that is because there are serious problems with the methodology, logic, and philosophical aspects of evolution. You could probably pick up any textbook on the philosophy of biology and delve into it (for a popsci account I recommend ‘Man, Beast, and Zombie: What science can and can’t tell us about human nature’ by Kenan Malik, a neurobiologist and historian of science). As someone who crosses the divide between biology and philosophy, the individuals on both sides are aware of these arguments. They just use different language and speak passed each other when talking about it. It’s also been my experience that it’s usually the non-scientists, dilettantes who become arch-darwinians after reading some Dawkins or Mayr, who refuse to listen to contra-philosophical views (after all, we all know that anyone who points out problems with evolution is really a closet creationist amirite?).
Yes, David Stove is both insightful and lots of fun to read — a rarity among philosophers.
Haven’t read the book so my sample is flawed, but…I’ve gotten a kick out of the comments. Being one who precariously bridges the qualitative/quatitative realm, and relishes the challenge, I am skeptical when I read what appears to be post-modern angst extending into the 21st century. I’ll read the book, my curiousity is hightened, but it appears another example of Hiesenberg run amok. Oh, wait a minute, I’ve been told that that is one of the critical marks of mis-applied intellectualism, the mis-application of the uncertainty principle. Or we can just agree that nothing is knowable outside of its sepcific spatial-temporal-cognitive context and I get to invent it all to my own self-interest. Nah, I don’t like that idea either… Lets hear it for the dualists!
Comments on this entry are closed.