Greg Krehbiel's Crowhill Weblog - Content

crow
Thoughts on life — News, culture, politics, beer, art, science, education, religion and ethics

Other Crowhill sites:
Crowhill PublishingGreg's Book Publishing blog
Greg's Marketing blogGreg's Home Brewing blog




Social “science” and SSM

by Greg Krehbiel on 25 March 2013

The social and behavioral sciences have a long history of being shaped and driven by politics and ideology.

Amen. I hope the Supreme Court has the sense to know that.

See The ‘Science’ of Same-Sex Marriage.

Same-sex marriage and child rearing by self-defined same-sex couples are recent innovations. Whatever effects may flow from these unprecedented arrangements, good or bad or neutral, they are scientifically unknowable until gay marriage and child rearing are widespread enough to yield large samples that can be studied according to a rigorous methodology. “Large amounts of data collected over decades,” write Kass and Mansfield, “would be required before any responsible researcher could make meaningful scientific estimates of the effects.”

Or, IOW, you can safely ignore anybody who says “the science” has anything whatsoever to contribute to the discussion — on either side.

-- 2013-03-25  »  Greg Krehbiel

Talkback

  1. John Krehbiel John Krehbiel
    25 March 2013 @ 12:36 pm

    In the social so-called sciences, there certainly is some knowledge, and it is almost never as definite as it is made out to be.

    In education, for instance, there is some well done research, and there is some crap in service of an ideology, or some flavor-of-the-month nonsense.

    But a similar standard has to be applied to claims of harm. Nebulous arm-waving claims about unknown and unknowable harms have been made against just about every social change ever.