the problem with social science is not so much that it has one theory for one thing and another theory for another thing6, but rather that it has many theories for the very same thing. Even worse, these theories — although often interesting and plausible when considered individually — are fundamentally incoherent when viewed collectively. I then argue that this incoherency problem arises not only because of a lack of appropriate data for evaluating social scientific theories, but also because of the institutional and cultural orientation of social-science disciplines, which have historically emphasized the advancement of particular theories over the solution of practical problems. Finally, I argue that one possible solution to the incoherency problem is to reject the traditional distinction between basic and applied science, and instead seek to advance theory specifically in the service of solving real-world problems.
I recommend the entire essay (thanks to Michael Gibson for bringing it to my attention).
My perspective on Watts’ proposal for “solution-oriented social science” is that it addresses the question of how to test theories. Consider three options.
a) undertake a statistical analysis
b) try it out as a public policy, but be prepared to modify it should it fail to work as expected.
c) try it out by starting a business based on it
I think that a lot of us have lost confidence in (a). There are too many important causal variables that cannot be controlled for in the real world. Esther Duflo seems to argue for (b). I think that economists ought to be more aware of (c) and less eager to try (b). Of course, problems in sociology or political science may be less amenable to private entrepreneurial solutions. Watts’ point is that (b) and (c) are viable approaches for arriving at reliable knowledge.
at no point does the existing system for producing social scientific knowledge either facilitate or reward the activity of reconciling disparate frameworks. As a result, facts and theories pile up in an incoherent heap
In economics, I think that we also have the opposite problem. We fail to consider other frameworks that might work as well as our preferred framework.
Another excerpt:
theories in social science tend to rise and fall in popularity more like works of fiction than of science, gaining support for reasons other than their ability to account for empirical observations.
Great post.
(b) is problematic because even when a policy is tried, people disagree on the implications of the outcome. Take minimum wage.
(b) is also problematic because the legislative process makes it difficult to start, stop, and tweak policies. And constituents desire stability and that politicians get things right the first time.
(c) is difficult because new public policy ideas are often illegal. For example, a restaurant couldn’t pay less than the minimum wage, and a person couldn’t provide medical services without going through the full licensing process.
” I think that economists ought to be more aware of (c) and less eager to try (b)” <<
But while all economists agree that, mostly, There's No Free Lunch, a majority of gov't policy by economics is an attempt to somehow justify getting some lunch (benefits) that come from Other People's Money.
It's also important to remember that, if OPM is used to pay for your lunch, you DO get a "Free Lunch". And getting their own free lunch, rent-seeking, is what most voters are most often voting for. This is the most key issue at the heart of the "problems with Liberalism".