**7. Social science is more than mere science**

And so, let us return to our question: are the social sciences really sciences? The answer, I propose, is yes. The social sciences are empirical sciences in the most pure and simple sense: they aim at understanding *Homo sapiens* by empirical study and the development of laws, representations, maps, predictive models, etc., of human phenomena that are judged by the precision of the model, the accuracy of its correspondence with observation, and its completeness relative to the questions posed.8 Like many physical sciences, such as meteorology, turbulence studies, geology, river hydrology, quantum mechanics, and so on, the social sciences are barred from ever becoming perfectly precise. Only simple systems can be predicted with infinite precision—whether in physical science or social science. The elements behave in elementary ways, but complex structures behave in ways that outstrip our ability to handle the variables or make the complex calculations tracking their interactions. This is true for the weather, for rivers, and for human beings.

Never lose sight of this fact: Only we care where the boundary is drawn between social science and the other sciences. We are unique in this regard—and in so many others. For one thing, it is quite plausible that we are in fact the most complex phenomenon we have yet found in the universe. For another, there is no guarantee—indeed no good reason—to believe that our intelligence is capable of understanding itself. Intelligence may always be more complex than it is smart. In any case, we observe deeply rooted physical constraints on our own self-knowledge. To the Socratic maxim, "Know Thyself!" science has after many centuries replied "Impossible!"

To this, Socrates has already stated his counter-reply: If I am wiser than other men it is because I know that I am not wise. The world remains a mystery, and we remain mysteries, so Socratic wisdom remains wisdom.

So, yes, the social sciences are truly sciences, even though their subject matter is mysterious—in that they are not alone. But social science is also integrated into our systems of education, medicine, justice, politics, economics, etc.—and this gives it great power, hence

<sup>8</sup> I discuss and defend a view of science as modeling of nature aiming for precision (of what the model says), accuracy (agreement of what it says with observation and measurement), and completeness (including what we want to know or understand) in Foss (2000) ch. 2; and Foss (2008), ch. 6.

Are the Social Sciences Really- and Merely- Sciences? 15

2. **Human freedom is worthy of respect.** One form of respect of *Homo sapiens* for *Homo sapiens* that we hold dear is that expressed and enforced in the enlargement or the restriction of human freedom of action (by which I mean your freedom *to do* such things as move about unobserved, have and care for children, accept patients; and your freedom *from* such things as arrest, imprisonment, punishment).11 Social scientists enjoy enlarged freedom of action and responsibility—while at the very same time those among us who suffer from ethical or social dysfunction have restricted or curtailed

3. **All human beings should have some humility.** Ignorance is a human imperfection, an essential aspect of our nature—an embarrassment that is the font of philosophy, which Socrates therefore loved to expose in all of its pathos and grandeur—and for which he paid with his life, for we so *hate* being embarrassed. We professors of this modern era are no exception. Do you, Dear Reader, profess to be wise—so wise as to restrict the freedom of action of your adult fellows? Of course you do! We all do. Social scientists not only acquiesce to the institutions or childcare on the one hand and imprisonment on the other, but contribute to standards under which these institutions operate through education, clinical practice, professional advising, and so on. Social scientists not only *do* but *should* influence the constant evolution of these institutions and standards in view of their increasing understanding of humankind. This influence should be

4. **Humility is the basis for respect.** The essence of respect (as opposed to fear or ritual deference) for another is humility: the sense that one is not so great that the wishes and feelings of the other can be disregarded. Respect is the emotional heart of equality: the

5. **Humanity deserves respect.**<sup>13</sup> Because humility presupposes so very little, nonbelievers of all stripes must also respect *Homo sapiens*, for no knowledge of God or evolution, ecomonics or ethics, anthropology or sociology, neuroscience or pychology, psychiarty or law, is required. Ignorance alone commands humility. Human action, and the hells and heavens we produce for each other, entail the same respect for ourselves that we have for any other natural phenomenon, whether the wind, ice-ages, or cometary impact.14 *Homo sapiens*, we, you, and I, Dear Reader, are capable of both great good and

6. **The most important form of understanding of each other is personal knowledge**.15 Personal knowledge, the knowledge we gain from communication with each other, is

11 Freedom of action in this sense is the fundamental sense of freedom for the human being, the sense of freedom he shares with other animals (and even plants), which I identify as *natural freedom* (Foss, 2008, ch 7). 12 John Rawls (1971) is famous for arguing that extra freedoms and responsibilities for some citizens are

justifiable if they work to the advantage of the population as a whole. 13 Kant's famous moral dictum (the categorical imperative) says, "Always treat humanity, whether in yourself or another, as an end in itself." This highest level of respect Kant also sees as linked to human freedom (although he conceives of freedom metaphysically, rather than pragmatically as I do here), Thus, Kant's doctrine is quite similar to what I profess here—although his metaphysical arguments presuppose far more than the Socratic arguments I supply here. 14 Beauty and awe marks the domain of the naturally sacred (Foss 2008, ch. 7): life, consciousness, and

15 Michael Polanyi still provides the most important study of the role of the individual person in knowledge in his book, *Personal Knowledge* (1958). Although he mainly restricts his account to the

sense that the other is at least one's equal, if not one's better.

great evil, both awesome beauty and gross ugliness.

freedom of action and responsibility.12

exercised with humility.

caring.

great responsibility. Power must be exercised with *humility*, in the face of the mystery of being human. For this mystery, though proven by physical science, is not even *expressible* in the language of physics or chemistry. Physical science examines the things of this world in terms of their physical parameters, but *meaning*, the collection, transformation, storage, communication, etc., of *information*, is not captured in physical parameters. The physical parameters of the words "Second world war" on this page do not causally connect them to the trillions of events of which that sorry human conflagration was comprised. It is instead your *understanding* of them that permits you to think of that war, which no longer exists, lost on a point in time and space now perfectly inaccessible to anything other than thought through its meaning.

So social science is really and truly science—but not *just* science: it is *more* than science for it also includes—and *must* include—the phenomenon of information, and hence meaning. This takes it beyond the boundaries of science as understood in the physical sciences. In addition to this special feature of social science, which concerns mainly its epistemology, metaphysics, logic, and method, the *de facto* social role of the social sciences gives it a special ethical feature as well: a responsibility for how we treat each other in our thoughts and institutions, particularly in education, medicine, law, and politics.

The ethical impact and responsibility of the social sciences is drawn out in our myth of Smith, for meaning is the essence of the myth. It was not the physical parameters of the *sound* of the words "Your mother is dead" that struck him down—it was their *meaning*. And it was the meaning of Smith's words, produced in response to Holman's analysis that enabled Holman to *understand* Smith, not as an object but as a human being—whether a fellow or not.9 Let us call this form of knowledge *personal knowledge*. It was in their mutual search for meaning and their partial success in discovering it and expressing it that Smith and Holman came to know *each other*—and such personal knowledge convinced Holman he mustn't turn Smith over to Military Intelligence.

#### **8. Seven morals for social scientists in the field, laboratory, or clinic**

Let me hasten to my morals—even before coming to my conclusions, which in the nature of philosophical exercises of this sort, must cast light on the world so that each illuminates the morals drawn.

Seven morals10 for social scientists

1. **The social scientist is humbled by the human being.** This humility is both *objective* (there are significant restrictions on the social scientific quest for knowledge) and *subjective* (the social scientist is imbedded in a culture that respects human beings ethically and legally).

<sup>9 &</sup>quot;Fellow human being" has the sense in English of both one's fellows—or kinship/ethnic/tribal/friendship connections—qualified generically by human: thus that all humans are fellows.

<sup>10</sup> A moral is a form of moral guidance offered as a gift, rather than forced upon its intended recipient as proven (as the word of God, logical necessity, the laws of reason, rationally presupposed, in accord with scientific law or fact, consistent with reason, etc.).

great responsibility. Power must be exercised with *humility*, in the face of the mystery of being human. For this mystery, though proven by physical science, is not even *expressible* in the language of physics or chemistry. Physical science examines the things of this world in terms of their physical parameters, but *meaning*, the collection, transformation, storage, communication, etc., of *information*, is not captured in physical parameters. The physical parameters of the words "Second world war" on this page do not causally connect them to the trillions of events of which that sorry human conflagration was comprised. It is instead your *understanding* of them that permits you to think of that war, which no longer exists, lost on a point in time and space now perfectly inaccessible to anything other than thought—

So social science is really and truly science—but not *just* science: it is *more* than science for it also includes—and *must* include—the phenomenon of information, and hence meaning. This takes it beyond the boundaries of science as understood in the physical sciences. In addition to this special feature of social science, which concerns mainly its epistemology, metaphysics, logic, and method, the *de facto* social role of the social sciences gives it a special ethical feature as well: a responsibility for how we treat each other in our thoughts and

The ethical impact and responsibility of the social sciences is drawn out in our myth of Smith, for meaning is the essence of the myth. It was not the physical parameters of the *sound* of the words "Your mother is dead" that struck him down—it was their *meaning*. And it was the meaning of Smith's words, produced in response to Holman's analysis that enabled Holman to *understand* Smith, not as an object but as a human being—whether a fellow or not.9 Let us call this form of knowledge *personal knowledge*. It was in their mutual search for meaning and their partial success in discovering it and expressing it that Smith and Holman came to know *each other*—and such personal knowledge convinced Holman he

**8. Seven morals for social scientists in the field, laboratory, or clinic** 

Let me hasten to my morals—even before coming to my conclusions, which in the nature of philosophical exercises of this sort, must cast light on the world so that each illuminates the

1. **The social scientist is humbled by the human being.** This humility is both *objective* (there are significant restrictions on the social scientific quest for knowledge) and *subjective* (the social scientist is imbedded in a culture that respects human beings

9 "Fellow human being" has the sense in English of both one's fellows—or kinship/ethnic/tribal/friendship connections—qualified generically by human: thus that all humans

10 A moral is a form of moral guidance offered as a gift, rather than forced upon its intended recipient as proven (as the word of God, logical necessity, the laws of reason, rationally presupposed, in accord with

institutions, particularly in education, medicine, law, and politics.

mustn't turn Smith over to Military Intelligence.

through its meaning.

morals drawn.

are fellows.

Seven morals10 for social scientists

ethically and legally).

scientific law or fact, consistent with reason, etc.).


<sup>11</sup> Freedom of action in this sense is the fundamental sense of freedom for the human being, the sense of freedom he shares with other animals (and even plants), which I identify as *natural freedom* (Foss, 2008, ch 7). 12 John Rawls (1971) is famous for arguing that extra freedoms and responsibilities for some citizens are

justifiable if they work to the advantage of the population as a whole. 13 Kant's famous moral dictum (the categorical imperative) says, "Always treat humanity, whether in

yourself or another, as an end in itself." This highest level of respect Kant also sees as linked to human freedom (although he conceives of freedom metaphysically, rather than pragmatically as I do here), Thus, Kant's doctrine is quite similar to what I profess here—although his metaphysical arguments

presuppose far more than the Socratic arguments I supply here. 14 Beauty and awe marks the domain of the naturally sacred (Foss 2008, ch. 7): life, consciousness, and caring.

<sup>15</sup> Michael Polanyi still provides the most important study of the role of the individual person in knowledge in his book, *Personal Knowledge* (1958). Although he mainly restricts his account to the

Are the Social Sciences Really- and Merely- Sciences? 17

2. Holman acted on his decision to withhold Smith from Military Intelligence by introducing himself to the officer from Military Intelligence who had come to get Smith, and inviting him, Major Turn, into his office for a drink. There he began to tell Turn about Smith, as one judge of the common soldier to another, and found him quite receptive. Major Turn was especially intrigued by Holman's suggestion that Smith was deeply patriotic, but so overpowered by his own feelings of inadequacy that he compensated by *acting* as though he didn't care. Turn asked to speak directly with Smith, Holman agreed, and Smith and Turn hit it off, as they say. One thing led to another, and eventually Smith had reestablished his contacts in Z's circle—only now as a double-agent for the British. Smith became a decorated

Bedford, Errol (1964) "Emotions." In Donald F. Gustafson, ed., *Essays in Philosophical* 

Dennett, Daniel (1996) *Kinds of Mind : Toward an Understanding of Consciousness,* New York:

\_\_\_\_\_ (2003b) "Who's On First? Heterophenomenology Explained," *Journal of* 

Internet: http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html Foss, Jeffrey (1987) "Is the Mind-Body Problem Empirical?" *Canadian Journal of Philosophy*,

\_\_\_\_\_ (1992) 'Introduction to the epistemology of the brain: indeterminacy, micro-

\_\_\_\_\_ (2007) "Only Three Dimensions and the Mother of Invention", *Behavioral and Brain* 

\_\_\_\_\_ (2011) "Just the Facts, and Only the Facts, about Human Rationality?" *Behavioral* 

Green, Karen, and John Bigelow (1998) "Does Science Persecute Women? The Case of the

James, Williams (1884) "The Dilemma of Determinism," republished in William James, *The* 

Konstan, David (2008) *A Life Worthy of the Gods: The Materialist Psychology of Epicurus,* Las

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962) *The Structure of Scientific Revolutions*. Chicago: The University of

Laing, Ronald David (1971) *The Politics of the Family and Other Essays*. London: Tavistock

Miller, George A. (1983) In Fritz Machlup and Una Mansfield, eds., *The Study of Information:* 

*Interdisciplinary Messages*, New York: John Wiley and Sons, p.111.

Eagleman, David (2011) *Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain*, New York: Penguin.

specificity, chaos, and openness", *Topoi*, vol. 11, pp. 45-57.

\_\_\_\_\_ (2008) *Beyond Environmentalism: A Philosophy of Nature*, New York: Wiley.

16th-17th Century Witch-Hunts," *Philosophy*, vol. 78, pp. 195-217.

*Consciousness Studies, Special Issue: Trusting the Subject? (Part 1)*, 10, No. 9-10,

*Psychology*, New York: Doubleday and Co. Inc., pp. 77-98.

war hero, and eventually retired to live with Turn.

\_\_\_\_\_ (2003a) *Freedom Evolves*, New York: Viking.

vol. 17, no. 3, (September), pp. 505-532.

*Sciences*, vol. 30, no. 4 (Aug, 2007), p. 370.

*and Brain Sciences,* vol. 34, issue 5, pp254-255.

Vegas, Athens, Zurich: Parmenides Publishing.

La Mettrie, Julien Offray de (1748) *L'homme machine*.

October 2003, pp. 19–30

*Will to Believe,* 1897.

Chicago Press.

Publications.

Eldredge, Niles (2001) "The Sixth Extinction."

**10. References** 

Basic Books.

based on a feature of informavores: transmission of information between individuals or groups. Social scientists may sometimes deny themselves this form of knowledge of their subjects to avoid bias in the pursuit of *knowledge*, but *wisdom* is the sole basis on which we may restrict (or enlarge) each other's freedom. Wisdom requires that we avail ourselves of the information available solely through communication among us before restricting (or enlarging) each other's freedoms.16

7. **Human life is enlightened by freedom, humility, respect, and personal knowledge.**17

#### **9. The pro-verbial bottom line**

So what finally happened? Did Smith eventually arrive at outcome1, becoming a Nazi spy, or outcome2, becoming a British spy? Obviously, there is no way to say: This unpredictability is a defining feature of our myth. To decree how this story ends runs contrary to its deepest message for the social scientist: We human beings are mysteries, so we if we investigate ourselves scientifically, it must be done with humility, respect, and fellowship.

So in all humility, based solely on my own personal knowledge, including insofar as possible my personal knowledge of you, my colleagues amongst those social scientists of whatever sort who still recall that you are philosophers in pursuit of Socrates' quest, I will choose two of the infinitely many paths Smith might possibly take to our two outcomes, like two shiny stars in among the myriads in the heavens, for you to throw out or keep, contradict or transform, be disappointed by or pleased—as unpredictably as you will. Please, do with them as you will. And please accept my most humble invitation into my abode, philosophy, if you have an ending of your own that leads to one of the two outcomes—for playfully engaging in such conceptual exercise was one of the original Academic pursuits: Lest Socrates die in vain.

1. Holman acted on his decision to withhold Smith from Military Intelligence by refusing to sign his release, insisting on the primacy of his authority over his patient. In response, Military Intelligence overruled Holman's command at a higher level, and sent an armed guard to take Smith in defiance of Holman's authority. Eventually, Smith was convicted of treason and imprisoned for 15 years.

physical sciences, it is in accord with the account given here, which extends his insights to the social sciences, where the scientific subject is an informavore. Cheryl Misak (2000) extends the account of personal knowledge among human beings to include the constitution of the state itself—following

Polanyi`s lead in *Science, Faith, and Society* (1946). 16 Among adults these restrictions range from quarantine to imprisonment. Quarantine presupposes respect, and thus involves no punishment, while imprisonment presupposes neither respect nor refraining from punishment. Among children, and given the assumption of respect for children, restriction on action range from manual care (dressing and feeding of

the infant, keeping toddlers in a playschool classroom, denying adolescents phone—or other—contact

with a sexual suitor) through verbal care (education, control of skill sets, friendships, and ideas). 17 One of the most amazing examples of this enlightenment is given by Green and Bigelow (1998), who explain how during the Basque witch-hunts of 1609-14, Bishop Salazar came to the understanding that socalled witches were just ordinary human beings like himself, through person-to-person interviews with accused witches—though his conclusion was contradicted by the substantial *science* of that time which provided rich empirical evidence for witchcraft along with rich theoretical support. Such is the power of human communication: it can reveal truth even in the darkest depths of ignorance and superstition.

2. Holman acted on his decision to withhold Smith from Military Intelligence by introducing himself to the officer from Military Intelligence who had come to get Smith, and inviting him, Major Turn, into his office for a drink. There he began to tell Turn about Smith, as one judge of the common soldier to another, and found him quite receptive. Major Turn was especially intrigued by Holman's suggestion that Smith was deeply patriotic, but so overpowered by his own feelings of inadequacy that he compensated by *acting* as though he didn't care. Turn asked to speak directly with Smith, Holman agreed, and Smith and Turn hit it off, as they say. One thing led to another, and eventually Smith had reestablished his contacts in Z's circle—only now as a double-agent for the British. Smith became a decorated war hero, and eventually retired to live with Turn.

#### **10. References**

16 Social Sciences and Cultural Studies – Issues of Language, Public Opinion, Education and Welfare

7. **Human life is enlightened by freedom, humility, respect, and personal knowledge.**17

So what finally happened? Did Smith eventually arrive at outcome1, becoming a Nazi spy, or outcome2, becoming a British spy? Obviously, there is no way to say: This unpredictability is a defining feature of our myth. To decree how this story ends runs contrary to its deepest message for the social scientist: We human beings are mysteries, so we if we investigate

So in all humility, based solely on my own personal knowledge, including insofar as possible my personal knowledge of you, my colleagues amongst those social scientists of whatever sort who still recall that you are philosophers in pursuit of Socrates' quest, I will choose two of the infinitely many paths Smith might possibly take to our two outcomes, like two shiny stars in among the myriads in the heavens, for you to throw out or keep, contradict or transform, be disappointed by or pleased—as unpredictably as you will. Please, do with them as you will. And please accept my most humble invitation into my abode, philosophy, if you have an ending of your own that leads to one of the two outcomes—for playfully engaging in such conceptual exercise was one of the original

1. Holman acted on his decision to withhold Smith from Military Intelligence by refusing to sign his release, insisting on the primacy of his authority over his patient. In response, Military Intelligence overruled Holman's command at a higher level, and sent an armed guard to take Smith in defiance of Holman's authority. Eventually, Smith was convicted of

physical sciences, it is in accord with the account given here, which extends his insights to the social sciences, where the scientific subject is an informavore. Cheryl Misak (2000) extends the account of personal knowledge among human beings to include the constitution of the state itself—following Polanyi`s lead in *Science, Faith, and Society* (1946). 16 Among adults these restrictions range from quarantine to imprisonment. Quarantine presupposes respect, and thus involves no punishment, while imprisonment presupposes neither respect nor refraining from punishment. Among children, and given the assumption of respect for children,

the infant, keeping toddlers in a playschool classroom, denying adolescents phone—or other—contact with a sexual suitor) through verbal care (education, control of skill sets, friendships, and ideas). 17 One of the most amazing examples of this enlightenment is given by Green and Bigelow (1998), who explain how during the Basque witch-hunts of 1609-14, Bishop Salazar came to the understanding that socalled witches were just ordinary human beings like himself, through person-to-person interviews with accused witches—though his conclusion was contradicted by the substantial *science* of that time which provided rich empirical evidence for witchcraft along with rich theoretical support. Such is the power of human communication: it can reveal truth even in the darkest depths of ignorance and superstition.

ourselves scientifically, it must be done with humility, respect, and fellowship.

restricting (or enlarging) each other's freedoms.16

**9. The pro-verbial bottom line** 

Academic pursuits: Lest Socrates die in vain.

restriction on action range from manual care (dressing and feeding of

treason and imprisoned for 15 years.

based on a feature of informavores: transmission of information between individuals or groups. Social scientists may sometimes deny themselves this form of knowledge of their subjects to avoid bias in the pursuit of *knowledge*, but *wisdom* is the sole basis on which we may restrict (or enlarge) each other's freedom. Wisdom requires that we avail ourselves of the information available solely through communication among us before


Eagleman, David (2011) *Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain*, New York: Penguin. Eldredge, Niles (2001) "The Sixth Extinction."

Internet: http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldredge2.html


Misak, Cheryl J. (2000) *Truth, Politics, Morality: Pragmatism and Deliberation.* Oxford: Routledge

**2**

*USA* 

Sylvain K. Cibangu *Regis University, Denver,* 

*University of Washington, Seattle,* 

**Karl Popper and the Social Sciences** 

The social sciences have a rich tradition, as shown by its various authors and theories found throughout written history. In the 1st century BC, for example, Seneca the younger stated that "human beings are social animals" (*Cl.*1.3.2). Not long before, in the 4th century BC, Aristotle insisted that "man is *by nature* [emphasis mine] a political animal" (*Pol.* 1.1.9). This chapter focuses on Karl Popper, a contemporary social thinker. Popper represented one of, if not, the most prolific authors that articulated the status of the social sciences. While Popper (1950/1971a, 1950/1971b, 1959/1992, 1963, 1972, 1982, 1983, 1991, 1996a) produced an extensive body of literature devoted to the social sciences, he has been given too little attention in modern social science historiography. Even though he "concentrated mainly on practical problems of the methodology of the social sciences" (Popper, 2008, p. 87), textbooks of social science methodology rarely include Popper's writings. Consequently, his works on the social sciences and/or psychology, including his dissertation, remain largely

This chapter explores the heretofore unexplored social themes that arise and recur in Popper's writings. To begin to redress this gap in the Popperian scholarship, Popper's (2008) recently published posthumous work is of particular interest to our discussion. I pay close attention to parts IV and V of this milestone book, which contains several of Popper's unpublished materials concerned with social issues. These materials were collected from various archives preserved respectively at Stanford University (USA), University of Canterbury (New Zealand), and Klagenfurt University (Austria). In addition, Popper's correspondence with the philosopher Rudolf Carnap (see Carnap's archives at the University of Pittsburg, USA) are included. Because the scope of this project is limited, further work is necessary, especially publication aimed at unearthing Popper's materials that are housed at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Indeed, the entire catalog of Popper's archived work represents an enormous amount of unpublished materials that cannot be adequately or faithfully reproduced in a single book chapter. It is important to warn the reader that Popper's oeuvre, and in fact, all his books (perhaps with the exception of *Furschung der Logic*) are comprised of a mélange of papers and drafts, written in a variety of genres, including lectures, correspondences, conference presentations, and drafts. Even though the majority of his work was written in English, each text was

written under different circumstances, at different times, and for different purposes.

**1. Introduction** 

unknown.

