It writes them off as a science, which is what I said. Who is being greedy? Those who wish their work to be considered valid as science because they engage in the scientific process but deal with a social topic, or those who want to prevent social scientists from getting recognition or grant money?

As for dividing science and art by quantitative vs qualitative methods, that betrays a lack of understanding of both social science & methodology. Plenty of social science deals in quantitative work, but you don't think it's science anyway. So even when social science passes your arbitrary thresholds, you still want us out of your church.

The specific historical event is not repeatable but no historical event is wholly unique wit no similarities to other events. You can easily look at trends and similarities of conditions and make hypotheses based on these trends and conditions. For example, each counterrevolution in Eastern Europe in the early 1990s was a "non-repeatable" event, yet since they had such similarities in conditions and processes we can look at them in a scientific way.

Science doesn't go out the window just because the subject matter is human beings.

Anyway you can't simultaneously complain about epistemic communities being narrow minded while also displaying a gross narrow mindedness when it comes to what work can be considered science proper. Your complaints about hegemony ring completely hollow.

You can make predictions without repeating things.

I did give an example in genetics of a prediction which just involved developing technology to better read DNA. I can't imagine how historians would be in a much different situation, where new technology can help uncover details of things which might have been predicted before they were understood.

Human beings by definition are pretty poor calibrants of themselves, let alone other human beings. Bias is a difficult enough issue in the hard sciences. In the social sciences it must be several orders of magnitude more difficult to deal with. I am quite happy with political philosophy, but political science must be fraught with danger. I make no value judgements on the merits or otherwise of arts and sciences, but think that the blurring of the two unhelpful to all concerned.

To categorise historical events is not the scientific process, but just the good old fashioned "compare and contrast", that pertained when I studied history at school. Useful, interesting and enlightening, but of no predictive value. No doubt you are aware that Marx predicted revolution in the highly industrialised countries with large proletariats, certainly not Tsarist Russia. No doubt you are also aware that one of Popper's formative insights was the totally unfalsifiable and thereby unscientific nature of Freudian analysis. To claim to be engaged in science does not by itself cut the mustard, even if one is after more grant monies. :-)

There are plenty of opportunities in political science to apply the scientific method.

For instance, you can investigate relations between certain aspects of the social status of individuals (age, income, education level, sex etc.) and voting behaviors or other types of political activity (party membership, grass roots activism, political cynicism etc.).

You can also investigate relations between aspects of political systems (consensus democracy, winner-take-all democracy, non-democratic, number of parties etc.) and the social/economic performance of these states (GDP, economic growth, crime levels, income inequality etc.).

Similarly there is a wide subfield of political science that studies psychological responses of voters to certain behaviors or choice of words of politicians. They go as far as taking eeg scans and measuring heartbeat rates etc, while people watch debates.

These are just a few of many examples of how the scientific method can (and is) applied in political science (as it is in other social sciences), including having falsifiable hypotheses and repeatable experiments. Through the application of statistical data analysis one can scientifically determine whether the hypotheses is true or not.

I'm fine with calling these scientific fields arts, but if you do so to dismiss their methodology then you aren't really up to date on how most modern scientists in these fields go about their business. The paradigm in most social science has shifted heavily towards statistical data analysis based on solid methodologies (at the expense of anecdotal types of research). This happened somewhere around the 1950's or 1960's.

Oh, and by the way, in the same sense as the battle of Hastings is not repeatable, neither is the formation of a galaxy repeatable. Nonetheless, if you study enough battles or enough galaxy formations, you can derive at scientifically sound conclusions about them.

Statistical analysis can be done on a wide variety of data. But uncovering relationships does not necessarily yield a predictive model. A theory coming out of some inferential analysis that does not yield a falsifiable, repeatable, and testable hypothesis, is not scientific theory. It can be an interesting bit of information, but it’s not a scientific theory.

For cases such as galaxy formation, the hypotheses are tested against new astronomical data coming in (i.e. data that was not used to build the model and would not trivially fit in the model as such.) In fact for some types of data, some of the information coming off of the telescope is actually withheld, so that some of the data can be used to inform the models, and some can be used to test it.

Until “Scientific Socialism” can form a hypothesis that is tested against data that wasn’t used to inform the hypothesis (i.e. *PREdiction*), it’s not a scientific theory. It’s information and editorial.

"But uncovering relationships does not necessarily yield a predictive model."

Yes it does, per definition. If you have uncovered a relationship between property A and property B then you can measure property A and use the uncovered relationship to predict property B.

If so inclined you can then measure property B to test the hypothesis.

"For cases such as galaxy formation, the hypotheses are tested against new astronomical data coming in (i.e. data that was not used to build the model and would not trivially fit in the model as such.)"

For cases such as sociological events, the hypotheses are tested against new sociological data coming in (i.e. data that was not used to build the model and would not trivially fit in the model as such.)


So, what's your point?

There are other types of analysis (i.e. descriptive) but OK, let's assume someone is trying to build a predictive model.

My point is that if a hypothesis not testable against data that was *not* used to create it, then it is not a scientific theory. It needs to be PREdictive; if it is not tested against new data, then anyone can trivially fit the data points to suit the past, and it's not a scientific theory.

I'm not 100% against applying scientific methods in the social sphere, though it *is* very slippery, sensitive to assumptions, and hard to infer in that field. But I don't see any testable predictions coming out of Scientific Socialism in particular.

Any theory in social sciences can be tested against events that happen in society after the theory has been formulated. That would include Scientific Socialism.

It is therefore painfully obvious that you're putting forward a completely useless and invalid argument for your claim that Scientific Socialism is not a testable theory.

I'm not saying that Scientific Socialism is a testable theory, as I don't know much about this theory, but in case it is not testable then there must be another reason for that than the crap you are putting forward.

Oscar already hit on this, but It's not just "comparing and contrasting", you look for patterns and relationships, which is what all science does. So, for example, proponents of 'modernization theory' noted how there was a strong tendency for governments to undergo democratic transition once they reach a certain level of economic development and income. Each democratic transition is a 'non-repeatable' event, but that does not preclude one from systematically analyzing which variables correlate to which outcomes, using sophisticated statistical techniques which are able to control for variables not being looked at. You have an extraordinarily narrow view of what counts for science, and an extraordinary ignorance of what modern social science does and its methods.

As for bias, why don't you actually bother to read the material, and see whether 'bias' is as big of a problem as you predict. Social scientists are very conscious of 'bias', hell I could give you multiple books dealing with social scientific research design dealing with this very problem. There are plenty of strategies for minimizing it, just like in the so-called "hard sciences". You seem to be under the impression that all of social science is bogged down in petty partisan bickering or something, or just writing polemics. In fact I know you've made such commentary before, so your new found respect for the "arts" is you turning a new leaf, because previously you've done nothing but disparage economics and political science.

"No doubt you are aware that Marx predicted revolution in the highly industrialised countries with large proletariats, certainly not Tsarist Russia"

Yes so that prediction didn't take place, Marx acknowledged that the center of revolution was shifting in the Russian preamble to the Communist Manifesto, so that means that social science cannot make predictions? Lenin made modifications to that theory, incorporating the importance of imperialism and the "weakest link in the imperialist chain". Theories get amended when the results don't match up. This happens in so-called "hard science" too. I don't get your point. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water.

If you want examples of successful (and modern) social scientific predictions, consult the work of Bruce Buena de Mesquita. He is a political scientist widely consulted by government officials for his predictions, much more so than any area specialist.

"To claim to be engaged in science does not by itself cut the mustard, even if one is after more grant monies. "

To dismiss work without being knowledgable about what it involves doesn't cut the mustard, and can't be taken seriously. It's especially ironic considering you supposedly care about rigor, but can't be bothered to get up to date about what you are criticizing. It's just being narrow minded for its own sake. You complain about bias when you're the main purveyor of bias.

"But I don't see any testable predictions coming out of Scientific Socialism in particular."

Tendmote you don't even know what scientific socialism is. Anyway Fulham already brought up one testable prediction - revolution taking place in countries with large proletariats. It didn't turn out quite that way, but a testable prediction was made, so your whole argument is bunk.

Well it was made, and it was falsified. Out with the theory!

More seriously, this Bruce Bueno de Mesquita person, is there a way I can make money when he's wrong?

Also, by the way, Popper's critique of psycho-analysis is way off the mark. Empirical research has been done which demonstrate the effectiveness of psycho-analytic derived therapies. Popper liked to bash things he didn't quite understand, which sounds familiar. For all of this wringing of hands about making tests, Popper and his modern-day incarnates sure don't like to look at evidence. And you talk about bias, but Popper set out explicitly to discredit Marxism and Freudism, everything he did is marked by extreme bias, but you accept his views uncritically.

Popper's work is completely useless in the real world. If people bothered to pay him attention, we wouldn't be able to do epidemiological hypotheses for the spread of HIV-AIDs, or have an understanding of the structure of DNA, or any of the valuable work that uses induction, models, and concepts.

"More seriously"

You don't take anything seriously.

"Out with the theory!"

The welfare state can be said to be a response to Marx's theory.

I'm not actually all that into Popper; I mentioned him only because you had just ragequit the argument by saying I wasn't one of two "famous professors" or something, so I had to borrow his name to make a point about falsification. I had to match your name-dropping.

Still... Marxism... as a science... not supported. No track record of correct predictions.

Most importantly, how influential is Bruce Bueno de Mesquita? Do his predictions affect the markets?

Here's a predictive hypothesis for you:

Whenever tendmote loses an argument he starts trolling.

You're moving the goalposts, Tendmote. All this time you'd been saying it didn't make any predictions.

It's not your "goal" unless Marxism is scientific. And until it makes testable predictions *that are true*, it ain't a science. (Granted, science is always falsifiable, but having survived enough falsification "ordeals" we trust it's predictions enough to bet our lives on it every time we get into a speeding vehicle. Marxism hasn't gotten over those hurdles as a "science")

And if it isn't a science, then what is the source of your confidence in it?

Evidence of a scientific basis in forums...

Hypothesis: Argue science with Putin33 and you lose.

"(Granted, science is always falsifiable, but having survived enough falsification "ordeals" we trust it's predictions enough to bet our lives on it every time we get into a speeding vehicle. Marxism hasn't gotten over those hurdles as a "science")"

Except, as putin pointed out, the move from laissez-fair states to welfare states that occurred in about the entire Western world in the 20th century and has mostly been quite successful was largely inspired by Marxism.

So yeah, whether you like it or not, we pretty much have been betting our lives on at least significant parts of it for decades now.

@oscarjd74 If you're suggesting that the West is currently Marxist, therefore Marxism is a science, please discuss the truth of the premise with Putin33. Tell him it's OK for him to retire now, job's done.

Otherwise... Marxism has not shown itself to make testable, correct predictions.

Tendmote, why have you not addressed the fact that you earlier claimed it made no predictions. You're changing your definition of science.

Marxist predictions about crises of capital have come true time and time again. Marxist analysis of overproduction and its recessive effects have come true, bourgeois economists have admitted it (see: Roubini). Look at the world today, look at the rising expropriation of wealth from the working class to the monopoly capitalists. Marxist predictions about the pauperization of the working class in he industrialized world have come true, albeit belatedly due to the aforementioned welfare state - which is being dismantled across the globe. Marxist predictions about inter-imperialist rivalry and resource wars have come true.

Certainly Marxian analysis of global affairs has gained ever greater currency since 2008, while bourgeois economics was left scratching its head.

Tendmote, it's merely your lack of comprehension of the subject matter that makes you think that the West is either Marxist or not. Marxism is a very broad theory that touches on a lot of aspects of society. In many of those aspects, yes, modern Western society is organized along lines based to varying extents on Marxism, in many other aspects it is not. The slow but steady dismantlement of the welfare state over the last two decades or so has been a trend away from Marxism, but given the widespread sentiments that unregulated bankers and speculators have caused a major economic crisis while generously filling their own pockets I wouldn't be surprised to see the pendulum swing back somewhat over the next few of decades.

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita - I predict this person will be completely discredited. I wish I could bet against him.

Also, "overproduction and its recessive effects", "expropriation of wealth" and "pauperization of the working class" are stopped-clock-is-right-twice-a-day predictions.