Reading Analysis of 'What Social Science Does--and Doesn't--Know'

What did you find interesting or uninteresting about the piece? Was there something that seemed intuitive or counterintuitive? Explain.
Social sciences, especially economics, seem to get a lot of flack about inconsistencies between predictions and results. Hard sciences, as they are referred to in the article, are regarded for having definitive, concrete outcomes. Although qualitative data can be extremely helpful for predicting social trends, economists are consistently chastised for incorrectly forecasting an event. Physicists, chemists, and biologists can't even say that the results of their experiments are surely indicative of future occurrences, and yet people generally don't argue with 'hard' science. It's true that social sciences are much harder to study because the variables are endless, but the themes are still warranted. As Rizzo explained, economists might not know the outcome of all situations presented to them, but they do understand how things are supposed to work. One would be hard-pressed to find a hard scientist who knew how an experiment should turn out.


Discussion Questions
Hard scientists are often perceived as having more reputable experiments and procedures than social scientists. Which group of scientists has a higher margin of error? Could they possibly be about the same? Why?


Why do people feel they can argue more with data presented by social scientists? Do chemists or biologists really have true controls in their experiments?


Annotation
This article makes an argument for the validity of economists assertions. Although controls are difficult to establish, the outcome of social science studies are still important for future understanding of economic policy. No 'hard' science can be correct 100% of the time, and neither can a social science. The bottom line is that all science has flaws and misrepresented results, but both make valid points.