"social, political, and economic matters"

[Boojatta]

If religion is a social matter, then the Religion/Theology forum may be an appropriate place to discuss the following:

Social scientists have gone to great lengths trying to maintain the unity of method but with remarkably little success. Their endeavors have yielded little more than a parody of natural science. In a sense, the attempt to impose the methods of natural science on social phenomena is comparable to the efforts of alchemists who sought to apply the methods of magic to the field of natural science. But while the failure of the alchemists was well-nigh total, social scientists have managed to make a considerable impact on their subject matter. Situations which have thinking participants may be impervious to the methods of natural science, but they are susceptible to the methods of alchemy. The thinking of participants, exactly because it is not governed by reality, is easily influenced by theories. In the field of natural phenomena, scientific method is effective only when its theories are valid, but in social, political, and economic matters, theories can be effective without being valid. Whereas alchemy has failed as natural science, social science can succeed as alchemy.

Source:
The Alchemy of Finance (Subtitle: reading the mind of the market)
by George Soros, copyright 1987
see Part One ("Theory")
The above paragraph is from Subsection Two ("The Problem of the Social Sciences") of Section One ("The Theory of Reflexivity").

Does the above paragraph answer the question posed in this DU Religion/Theology thread? If the paragraph quoted above doesn't answer the question, might it nevertheless provide a key idea that will help in the process of finding an answer?

[provis99]

1. George Soros sounds like a postmodernist.

And yes, that is intended as an insult.

[Jim__]

2. Really? Which postmodernist does he sound like?

And, if you are not referring to a particular person, are you referring to a particular theory? To a particular work? I would like to learn more about this and would appreciate a reference.

[Boojatta]

3. More from the same book

Thinking plays a dual role. On the one hand, participants seek to understand the situation in which they participate; on the other, their understanding serves as the basis of decisions which influence the course of events. The two roles interfere with each other. Neither role is performed as well as it could be if it were performed separately. If the course of events were independent of the participants' decisions, the participants' understanding could equal that of a natural scientist; and if participants could base their decisions on knowledge, however provisional, the results of their actions would have a better chance of corresponding to their intentions. As it is, participants act on the basis of imperfect understanding and the course of events bears the imprint of that imperfection.

(...)

The interaction between scientists is governed by certain conventions. These conventions are neither clearly defined nor permanently fixed. They derive their authority from the fact that they produce desired results. Individual scientists often find the conventions quite onerous and try various shortcuts in order to attain a desired result. Only because the shortcuts do not work do the conventions of scientific method continue to prevail.

Perhaps the most outstanding example of the observer trying to impose his will on his subject matter is the attempt to convert base metal into gold. Alchemists struggled long and hard until they were finally persuaded to abandon their enterprise by their lack of success. The failure was inevitable because the behavior of base metals is governed by laws of universal validity which cannot be modified by any statements, incantations, or rituals.

Let us now consider the behavior of human beings. Do they obey universally valid laws that can be formulated in accordance with the D-N model? Undoubtedly, there are many phenomena involving human beings, from birth to death and in between, which are amenable to the same treatment as other natural phenomena. But one human phenomenon seems to exhibit characteristics different from those of the phenomena which form the subject matter of natural science: the decision-making process. Decisions are based on an imperfect understanding of the situation. How does such a situation provide the initial and final conditions which are supposed to be connected according to laws of universal validity? Do those conditions include or exclude the participants' thinking? If thinking is included, the conditions are not amenable to scientific observation, because only the effects of the participants' thinking can be observed, not the process itself. If the thinking process is excluded and only its effects are admitted as evidence, the universal validity of scientific generalizations is destroyed because a given set of conditions is not necessarily preceded or succeeded by the same set every time (...)

There is much to be gained by pretending to abide by the conventions of scientific method without actually doing so. Natural science is held in great esteem: a theory that claims to be scientific can influence the gullible public much better than one which frankly admits its political or ideological bias. I only need to mention Marxism and psychoanalysis as typical examples; but laissez-faire capitalism, with its reliance on the theory of perfect competition, is also a case in point. It is noteworthy that both Marx and Freud were vocal in protesting their scientific status and based many of their conclusions on the authority they derived from being "scientific." Once this point sinks in, the very expression "social science" becomes suspect. It is a magic word employed by social alchemists in their effort to impose their will on their subject matter by incantation.

[Jim__]

4. If you accept that the paragraph is correct, it answers the question.

But, that paragraph is merely an opinion. Does the rest of the book prove the correctness of that paragraph? I doubt it.

[Boojatta]

5. Do you have an opinion about what is likely to be a correct answer

to the question in the other thread?

[Jim__]

6. I don't believe science is the only way to understand reality.

I believe science is the best way we have now to understand certain aspects of reality; but there are other aspects of reality that science doesn't really address; and I agree somewhat with what Soros is saying. You cannot strictly apply the scientific method to social sciences because you cannot isolate and test variables.