Hacker News Reader

Nobody argues that social sciences are useless because it's impossible to find patterns. People argue that social sciences are useless because they find random pattern in a specific data and don't attempt to reproduce the result. And when attempted, turns out that most of them are just random patterns that only occur in that study data and don't correspond to everyone.

View on HN

The main problem of social science like history or economy is that they are political shaped sciences. Both pick those pattern that fit into their world view, to form a religion like truth of how the world worked. And state payed historian or economic scientist will normally preach the view of their system.

I did not have time for this year Riksbanks Rris, but e.g. in 2013 we saw a typical price " should discard its mathematical pretensions " and better just tell its political agenda straight. Instead they used a positivistic computer simulation, which basically means: I have a row of theories (CAPM, OPT, EHM, ...) that have several unknowns and I tweak their parameters till simulation shows the results that I want to show.

So they find random pattern in specific data. It wouldn't be bad if their results fit some political agenda, as long as the results are truth. Problem is it's not just a matter of showing results that fit political agenda and remaining silent about ones that doesn't fit. Problem is that almost everything, fits agenda or not, is false, ireproducible random noise. You almost never see the results building on earlier results in social science, like it is in all other sciences. You only see "studies" spewed out like from some kind of social study generator, and none of these matter even to themselves as they are forgotten as soon as they are published.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com