Hacker News Reader

There is a deeper problem with research in Social sciences. It lacks theoretical underpinning. Studies and experiments are frequently based on 'pragmatic', ad-hock assumptions that are easy to confirm but irrelevant.

View on HN

I'd say this is a biased view. In German speaking countries, social sciences rather suffers from theory flim-flam. Maybe in the US, you didn't have your Luhmann-moment yet.

The prior poster lamented the absence of validated theory in the social sciences. Your point is that many of the theories that do exist have no validity. I think those views dovetail.

Exactly.

Based on your original comment I had the impression our views rather diverge but maybe I got you wrong. Anyway, HN isn't really the place to discuss such matters.

Can you elaborate on that?

I'd agree with Stewbrew. SocSci is PACKED with people trying to jam new theory into already crammed areas, because it's the only way they'll get on; although I agree that the studies and experiments are based on sometimes fleeting assumptions or hypotheses, it isn't because of a lack of theory.

> people trying to jam new theory into already crammed areas

Those 'theories' are very limited in scope, ad-hock theories. Not theories in the meaning of "abstract or generalizing thinking" (Wikipedia).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com