Lee McIntyre. Dark Ages: The Case for a Science of Human Behavior

Boaz Miller
{"title":"Lee McIntyre. Dark Ages: The Case for a Science of Human Behavior","authors":"Boaz Miller","doi":"10.4245/SPONGE.V5I1.14576","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The social sciences today, Lee McIntyre argues, are in the same state in which the natural sciences were in the Dark Ages. In the same way that religion inhibited the progress of science and the growth of knowledge in the Dark Ages, so is political correctness inhibiting progress in the social sciences and the growth of knowledge today. This is why, so he argues, the social sciences do not follow the scientific method like the natural sciences do, and are hence incapable of offering effective solutions to pressing social problems such as crime, famine, and war. The reason why political correctness is able to affect science in this way is our fear of knowledge. Human beings are simply too terrified to discover unpleasant truths about themselves, so they prevent certain hypotheses from being seriously tested in social science research. Rather, they prefer to indulge in comforting pseudo-scientific ideology. These are bold claims, but McIntyre’s argument to support them is thin and weak. In particular, it fails to come close to meeting the standards of proof by empirical evidence that McIntyre requires the social sciences to meet.","PeriodicalId":29732,"journal":{"name":"Spontaneous Generations-Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2011-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Spontaneous Generations-Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4245/SPONGE.V5I1.14576","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The social sciences today, Lee McIntyre argues, are in the same state in which the natural sciences were in the Dark Ages. In the same way that religion inhibited the progress of science and the growth of knowledge in the Dark Ages, so is political correctness inhibiting progress in the social sciences and the growth of knowledge today. This is why, so he argues, the social sciences do not follow the scientific method like the natural sciences do, and are hence incapable of offering effective solutions to pressing social problems such as crime, famine, and war. The reason why political correctness is able to affect science in this way is our fear of knowledge. Human beings are simply too terrified to discover unpleasant truths about themselves, so they prevent certain hypotheses from being seriously tested in social science research. Rather, they prefer to indulge in comforting pseudo-scientific ideology. These are bold claims, but McIntyre’s argument to support them is thin and weak. In particular, it fails to come close to meeting the standards of proof by empirical evidence that McIntyre requires the social sciences to meet.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
李麦金太尔。黑暗时代:人类行为科学的案例
李·麦金太尔(Lee McIntyre)认为,今天的社会科学与黑暗时代的自然科学处于同一状态。就像宗教在黑暗时代抑制了科学的进步和知识的增长一样,政治正确也在今天抑制着社会科学的进步和知识的增长。他认为,这就是为什么社会科学不像自然科学那样遵循科学方法,因此无法为犯罪、饥荒和战争等紧迫的社会问题提供有效的解决方案。政治正确之所以能够以这种方式影响科学,是因为我们对知识的恐惧。人类只是太害怕发现关于自己的不愉快的事实,所以他们阻止某些假设在社会科学研究中得到认真的检验。相反,他们更喜欢沉迷于令人宽慰的伪科学意识形态。这些都是大胆的主张,但麦金太尔支持这些主张的论据却单薄无力。特别是,它没有达到麦金太尔要求社会科学达到的经验证据证明标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Beyond Realism and Antirealism ---At Last? Tolstoy’s argument: realism and the history of science Douglas A. Vakoch and Matthew F. Dowd. The Drake Equation: Estimating the Prevalence of Extraterrestrial Life through the Ages The Relevance of Evidence from the History of Science in the Contemporary Realism/Anti-realism Debate Four Challenges to Epistemic Scientific Realism—and the Socratic Alternative.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1