I don't think anybody here hates the social sciences, and I do think
that the word pseudoscience is a red herring. I think that what some on
the list are trying to point out is that in some cases it is very
difficult to point to some causative chain for the observed events with
any degree of certainty. The result is that we wind up with a lot of
fancy statistics. We are uncertain because it is difficult if not
impossible to deal with all of the variables even if we can identify
them; statistical arguments can be found for most any hypothesis you
want to advance. These statistical arguments can be very useful if
they are developed in an even-handed manner and intrepreted without
bias.
Having said this much, I should say that I suspect that there are some
( a minority ) who decide what they want their study to say and then do
the study to confirm their preconceived ideas. This approach is doomed
to failure. The experimenter becomes the drunk in the old story whose
tag line is: "He uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamppost - for
support rather than enlightenment."
WBN
Barlow Newbolt
Professor of Physics
Washington and Lee University
e-mail: newboltw@wlu.edu
telephone: 540-463-8881
fax: 540-463-8884
Office: Howe 218
"Had I been present at the creation, I would have given
some useful hints for the better ordering of the universe."