Noam Chomsky on the Social Sciences and Theory - The New World Order Part 12 (1998)

[McTaggStar]

Wow, social sciences are "intellectual thin"? Biology is largely descriptive once you get past large molecules? Um, WHAT? Tell that to generations of evolutionary biologists who use complex statistical and mathematical analyses in NON-DESCRIPTIVE, analytic studies of evolutionary relationships. Tell that to cultural anthropologists who use over-arching, guiding theory from which to derive testable hypotheses about cultural phenomena. For all that Chomsky is a genius, I also think he's an idiot.

[astroboomboy]

@McTaggStar That is exactly what he is saying, they use complex models but find no laws governing what they observe. It is mere description of what is going on, not what HAS to happen. The theories in biology are always at a molecular level, beyond that it's just statistics (as you mentioned), and that does not get us LAWS.

[McTaggStar]

@astroboomboy: Not necessarily. Laws can be discerned, particularly in social anthropology and sociology. For as, it is always the case that division of labour brings about social inequality, and so on. So no.

[astroboomboy]

@McTaggStar Theory and law is something much more specific in the natural sciences. The problem with saying that division of labor causes inequality is that it is an emergent phenomenon which is highly unstable. What causes division of labor, what causes that, and so forth. There are no laws or theories in the social sciences, just observations that leads to generalizations.

[McTaggStar]

@astroboomboy: The same goes in the natural sciences, friend. It might be harder to pin down generalizations in the social sciences, but at the end of the day a 'law" like division of labour brings about social inequality and a law like the attraction between two bodies is inversely proportional to the square of their distance are both empirical laws. One is not necessarily (by necessarily I mean a deductive truth) true while the other is merely derived from generalization. Both fall in the

[McTaggStar]

@astroboomboy: category of synthetic statements of matters of fact, and the less stable nature of the social law is nothing more than a trivial consequence of the volatile nature of sociality. The inverse square law is, practically speaking, more stable; but it is just as much subject to being knocked down by more testing as is any social 'law'.

[astroboomboy]

@McTaggStar Sure, they are both synthetic statements, the difference is that you can do experiments in order to verify theories in the natural sciences, while in the social sciences that is practically impossible. The so-called law you mention are also what Chomsky calls truisms. The "law" you mentioned is self-evident, laws in natural science are not. In the end social sciences tend to be just truisms wrapped in "difficult" language.

[astroboomboy]

@McTaggStar Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way critical of the social sciences, I just don't think the state it is in now leads us anywhere before some genius discover something equivalent to the discovery of DNA or atoms. Something that can make the social sciences more scientific...

[McTaggStar]

@astroboomboy: Now what would it mean to say a statement is a truism? That would seem to mean either 1) that it is in some way obvious and trivial; or 2) that is is necessarily true - a tautology. That division of labour always leads to social inequality is neither necessary nor obvious. In fact, it is highly possible for division of labour to be just the opposite, and bring about greater social cohesion rather than inequality. But that isn't the case. By calling it a truism we relegate it to

[McTaggStar]

@astroboomboy: the category of the trivial, and it is anything but. It is a valid law just as the inverse square law, and it can indeed be tested, although the methods for testing hypotheses in the social sciences are different, but roughly akin to the way biologists test hypotheses about ecosystems - by using the field as a natural laboratory.

[astroboomboy]

@McTaggStar The problem with the "law" you mention is that it is dependent on other factors. What gives rise to division of labor? What gives rise to the way we organize ourselves? These are phenomenons dependent on other factors, underlying factors. Have there been societies without division of labor? What is the division of labor in a prison. Is it the division of labor that creates inequality, or inequality that creates division of labor. See, it doesn't really explain anything.

[astroboomboy]

@McTaggStar A mathematical description of a quantum state is a descriptive model of that state in how it must behave, and why it must behave like that. The laws in sociology does only describe what everybody observe (truisms), but not why it HAS to be this way.

[McTaggStar]

@astroboomboy: "A mathematical description of a quantum state is a descriptive model of that state in how it must behave," Yes, how it must *given other underlying factors* as well. Such a mathematical statement is not tautologous, it is not a necessary truth; it is still but a contingency. So no, it doesn't actually HAVE to be that way.

[astroboomboy]

@McTaggStar No, it is not given other underlying factors, it is a description at the most fundamental level. Social sciences do not give a description of the underlying factors that give rise to the phenomenon they trie to describe. It all becomes subjective, and hence you get people like Kristeva and Butler as representatives for serious science. There are no theories in the social sciences that stand scrutiny, every scientist have their own views. Not so in the natural sciences.

[JimBowie1133]

Interesting being that linguistics is a social science. So does he consider his own work in the linguistics 'intellectually thin'?

[tailorswing02]

@JimBowie1133 Linguistics is not a social science. It is the science of a specific human faculty, the language faculty. So called "social sciences" are concerned with larger societal issues. Not particular biological outgrowths. No duh.

[JimBowie1133]

@tailorswing02 , Linguistics is a social science. The specific human faculty it deals with - language - is only partly determined by 'biological outgrowths' . Economics could be said to deal with 'biological outgrowths' in the form of the need for production and distribution of resources for group survival.

[tailorswing02]

@JimBowie1133 Practically everything is only partly determined by biological outgrowths. The very fact that I have arms and legs is determined by biology, but also by the fact that I was fed and nurtured as a kid by caring parents. That does not mean that the science of studying limb growth is a social science.

[astroboomboy]

@JimBowie1133 Linguistics is not a social science, as it does not study language in relation to society. I mean, some linguists do study semiotics, and you have the dubious field of social linguistics, but that field has never made any contribution to our understanding of language. Economics is not a biological outgrowth in the same sense as language as economic behavior is not governed by deep underlying rules, but are rather the complex product of several aspects of our brain.

[greenvox]

You have to get up and go to another country to understand social science.

[Redcarpet01]

What dialects was that student's voice from?

[AnarchoHumanist]

@Redcarpet01 Regular old American.

[Redcarpet01]

@AnarchoHumanist I'm being serious.

[AnarchoHumanist]

@Redcarpet01 Me too. I'm American and the dialect sounds like the vast majority of English I've heard spoken. Given this and the fact that the talk was in Maryland, I see no reason to doubt he is American. Does it sound like something else to you?

[Redcarpet01]

@AnarchoHumanist I'm asking where in the US does it sound like from

[AnarchoHumanist]

@Redcarpet01 Impossible to say; there's nothing regional about it. Could be Northeast, Midwest, West Coast, or even down South. People all over the country grow up speaking like that if they don't pick up a regional accent. It's like hearing someone speak 'BBC English' and asking where exactly in Britain they are from, only even more difficult to answer.

[plarpusan12]

I think this article explains in further detail: (dot) mrbauld (dot) com (slash) chomsky1 (dot) html

[Zendout1]

pssst---hey kid---here's the retarded liberal theory

USA = Bad

Iran, North korea, Myanamr, Venezuela, Argentina = Good

[BEETSEEKA]

@ :12 ...lol Noams like noooo....stupid question..."this is a critical question" GTFO pretenscennster...

[macsm]

It would be interesting to hear Professor Chomsky's opinion of Satoshi Kanazawa's work, specially regarding his last blog. It seems to me it would go to the core of what he is talking about here...

[8bobthebuilder]

no theory in the social sciences? Lol How did marxist thought come into effect? How did sociology come into effect? Why are there journals in the social sciences? I don't think Chomsky honestly means that there is no theory in the social sciences, I think he;'s just making the claim that a lot of what passes as theory and a lot of what the sociall sciences find out are common sense! That does not mean theory ceases to exist!!

[tokotokotoko3]

"...if you do these things you can get a sense of the world as good as anybody has."

So fantastic and empowering! I love Q&A's with Chomsky.

[whedonfreak976]

@tokotokotoko3 agreed, i think chomsky is trying to tell people that theories are just holding us back, and we should just think for our selves, and use our common sense

[Mikeofdundee1987]

I love sociology but I think Chomsky makes a good point. While the sociological immagination is important, it can only go so far. Take for example, if a society was 99% homophobic, if the blank slate was true why would you still have homosexuals? In terms of society trying to trick you, surely that is where the socialization takes place. So it is not that society completely shapes you, but certain environments might, as such being born in a poor neighbourhood and turning to crime.

[timetochilli]

yes thank you chomsky i had enough of sociology degree people have become thick because of it

[madisonmiak]

sucess your life why are you waiting here #lushfmlk.info#

[ZakBrownrigg123]

Im shocked he called social science intellectually thin. Maybe I am misunderstanding what he meant.

[LanTheWarder]

@ZakBrownrigg123

I think what he means is that social sciences and human behavior are too complex to describe with the same kind of scientific endeavour as with the natural sciences. Thereby he rejects marxism, since that ideology tries to describe human society through mechanic means.

It is not that he dismisses the social sciences, he rather means that it does not have the same scientific ground as the natural sciences do.

[cryptickripke]

@LanTheWarder No, he's dismissing the social sciences. He's written quite a bit about it. There's an awesome video of physicist Richard Feynman saying the same thing. They "mimic the surface features" of actual sciences (to quote Chomsky) but without anything even approaching the same level of precision and substantive empirical claims. There is no real body of social scientific knowledge as there certainly is in biology, chemistry, physics. Much "political science" is just very bad philosophy.

[LanTheWarder]

@cryptickripke If that's the case can you give me some reference? I have read a lot of his work, though most concerning linguistics, but I have yet not seen him express such a view - maybe I missed something. Furthermore when you say "actual sciences" I frankly don't understand what you mean. I see no difference between the "knowledge" you acquire in natural science and the one you acquire in social science. That is to say the empirical sciences, mathematics is a differentstory. continued --

[cryptickripke]

@LanTheWarder I gave you three examples of actual sciences: biology, chemistry, physics. Here's the link to that video of Feynman (a scientist): watch?v=IaO69CF5mbY

[LanTheWarder]

@cryptickripke In both means of study we try to create a model of some phenomena based on empirical data, facts, or whatever you want to call it. The only difference I see is that in one case you study "natural" phenomena and in the other "social phenomena", however the same method of testing and applying hypothesis remains. Also I fail to see how one can go further into saying that one is better than the other before one has a definable understanding of what knowledge, is which I doubtyoudo.

[cryptickripke]

@LanTheWarder You're simply explaining the mimicry of surface features I mentioned. But in any case I'm not interested in a philosophy of science debate on YouTube. Your presumptions aside, I do have a good idea what it means to know something, as do most rational people. I also study epistemology quite a bit, but anyway my own credentials and theories are not relevant. I just noticed that you misunderstood Chomsky. Here's a quote (next comment):

[cryptickripke]

@cryptickripke "...elements of organized religion, areas of the humanities and "social sciences" where understanding and insight are thin and it is therefore easier to get away with dogmatism and falsification, perhaps others. But the sciences, at least as I am familiar with them, are as remote from these descriptions as anything in human life." The essay is called "Rationality/Science" and the context is too complicated to sum up here. He doesn't think it's science, he thinks it's bullshit.

[Mikeofdundee1987]

@ZakBrownrigg123 I think what is important to remember is science proves nothing. All sciences give theories and ideas and evidences. Science be it natural or social exists to be disproven by new information. I think his arguement is while some areas of sociology make no sense, they are dogmatically kept. (such as a blank slate) It is worth remembering that Chomsky has also said before that you cannot explain all of human behaviour purely with genetics as it ignores the influence of the rich.

[philthy415]

"intellectually thin?" "I don't know of any theories in the social sciences," i assume he means theory like it is applied in the hard sciences, if so, that's obvious and without dispute. Maybe he'd be happier if the social scientist called it something else...but I understand theory as a form of understanding, that is, "theories" help us explain and thus understand. I could be wrong, just a thought. BTW, did he ever answer the kids question?

[DrDDDuke]

@philthy415

Yeah, I didn't really understand what he was saying. Was it just semantics?

[rocksoliddude1]

@philthy415 we all have our own perspectives and opinions to develop and they are allowed to differ or deviate from other people's, I think this is what he means; it is not theory because it cannot fully be proved wrong or it cannot be proved completely correct unlike in the natural sciences which have deterministic and emphirical results, answers and conclusion from their theories.

e.g.

this gas is oxygen - only answer and only correct answer.

9/11 inside job - matter of debate



[igalgd]

@rocksoliddude1 Actually theory , in his understanding, is something that isn't trivial. Since the social sciences deal with pretty obvious things, bombastic rhetoric aside, they don't deserve the title.

[hasankeser]

lol @ applauses

[Keatelite]

p2...expert knowledge of rhetorical critique, although it would help. It implementation in live is merely being consistent in your skeptic approach to all information and stimuli of interest... and in some cases omitting exposure to media that is specifically and overtly propoganda. i.e. ads

[Keatelite]

p1... Key take away points: remember that the institutions are always attempting to indoctrinate you, and you must compensate... I think its imperative to take that a step beyond to actually becoming essentially immune to propoganda. Acheiving this is not a matter of say