Few students of the social sciences would dispute the broad argument made in this NYT article by Nicholas Christakis. The tenor of the piece is that unlike the natural sciences, the pantheon of social sciences have hardly changed and are still stand alone disciplines that allow for little mixing and integration with other to create newer and more useful areas of study.
This assertion is demonstrably true because the major social sciences including economics, sociology and anthropology are taught and learned in the traditional ways that they have been for at least a century. While this has provided for stability and expanded the body of literature, it is not clear that the disciplines have made meaningful progress in asking new questions and using modern tools. One would add that this conservatism is seen in the fact that fact that in spite of the proximity of subject, these departments still have different foundational courses and traditional structures at the academies.
However, I am less convinced that the desired shake-up of the social sciences would provide for a definitive theory or closure of long-standing areas of enquiry. This is possible in the natural sciences because foundational ideas such as gravity and calculus remain the same but social phenomena changes with observation and with social structures. For instance, the causes and drivers of crime varies by the age profile of society and this has changed substantially over the last century. For that reason alone, it is not possible to have a definitive theory of crime for more than a generation.
What the article states eloquently is that the traditional silos of the social sciences do not make much sense and that knowledge creation is stifled by the singular lenses by which professors in the social sciences approach their subject. In sum, disciplines such a s sociological economics and behavioural economics point to the future.
This assertion is demonstrably true because the major social sciences including economics, sociology and anthropology are taught and learned in the traditional ways that they have been for at least a century. While this has provided for stability and expanded the body of literature, it is not clear that the disciplines have made meaningful progress in asking new questions and using modern tools. One would add that this conservatism is seen in the fact that fact that in spite of the proximity of subject, these departments still have different foundational courses and traditional structures at the academies.
However, I am less convinced that the desired shake-up of the social sciences would provide for a definitive theory or closure of long-standing areas of enquiry. This is possible in the natural sciences because foundational ideas such as gravity and calculus remain the same but social phenomena changes with observation and with social structures. For instance, the causes and drivers of crime varies by the age profile of society and this has changed substantially over the last century. For that reason alone, it is not possible to have a definitive theory of crime for more than a generation.
What the article states eloquently is that the traditional silos of the social sciences do not make much sense and that knowledge creation is stifled by the singular lenses by which professors in the social sciences approach their subject. In sum, disciplines such a s sociological economics and behavioural economics point to the future.
