Is there such a thing as a social science?

Several years ago, there was a popular copy-and-paste scolding making its way around Facebook. It was an open reprimand of anyone who uses the word “research” to mean a deep dive on Google about a topic of interest. The correction delineates the scientific process of research. The posting I saw was by an actor, weirdly. Copy . . . paste . . . post.

I may be new to social science, and feeling inadequate to invest an opinion on whether social science is science, but the answer is yes. I’ve had semantic battles before. I’ve gone full Atticus Finch over the Oxford comma. My expertise is the English language. 

Language is a little like Fight Club. The rules are there are no rules. Rules are made to be broken.

Language is not like Fight Club. Do talk about language. If you’re talking, then you’re already there.

Scientists and actors alike have no supremacy in policing English. It is bigger than they are. It is a dynamic tsunami of constant change that bows to no human. 

Linguistics aside, social science studies human behavior. Social science experiments are held to the same rigorous standards as sciencey-science experiments. Is there controversy over biology’s place in the scientific fold? Is there a reckoning over the study of animal behavior? Humans are animals. I did not research-Google this, but I’m curious as to whether Christianity has a minor role in this drama. Some Christian sects do not like being lumped in with tardigrades and kittens and Methodists. 

In tribute to my opening paragraph, I just googled the topic. A rabble-rouser named Peter Winch wrote a book stating social science is not a science. Responses followed. Some of the responses were also whole books. This is clearly a larger debate than just a 500-word blog post. Glancing over Winch’s Wikipedia entry, I see Simone Weil mentioned (religion has a presence here!). I see Winch is not a scientist in the cooler way (natural world, medical stuff), he actually is a social scientist, but wants different words for it. His issue is linguistic. (Again, delighted, I hit the nail with eyes half-shut.)

Why is this a thing? Is there a hierarchy of some kind? A softball league demanding this classification? I believe in cross-pollination. I believe in new forms of knowledge arising from the synthesis of multiple fields and disparate worlds.  Two households, both alike in dignity . . . 

Social research is interesting and necessary. Artificial intelligence is another tool. Major advances are always met with resistance (printing press, motion picture, television, the honking key fob). New things are scary. I see AI as a helper to give humans more time to do human things, like imagining and feeling and sinning boldly. 

Because of technology, especially AI, teaching and learning are changing. That’s a good thing, if it frees teachers to be the classroom (whatever form that takes) link to humanity. This is the topic of a short paper I’m writing now. AI will leave less margin for bias in assessments. Will it be perfect? No. Is any human teacher perfect? No. But with AI ready to assist, a human teacher might be freer, happier, or inspired.