What factors determine the status of an academic discipline?

[Aimless]

I may be wrong, but I get the impression that sociology and English lit are disciplines that have a lower status on this forum than do economics and political science, which, in turn, have a lower status than do physics and medicine ().

What factors determine the status of an academic discipline in a group of intellectuals such as ours? Is it a discipline's relative "purity"? Is it a discipline's capacity to generate strong and true assertions about the world? Does it have to do with the difficulty of mastery? Is it a discipline's closeness to our own field of study? Is it down to money?

Just out of curiosity

[Loki]

I base my opinion on a field's quality of research (falsifiability, reliability of measures, logical consistency of theory, replicable results, generalizable, etc.). When most research in a field is based on mental masturbation, I don't think very highly of it.

[Aimless]

Do you have any particular fields in mind that feature masturbation-based research?

[Loki]

Do you have any particular fields in mind that feature masturbation-based research?

Off the top of my head: social theory, literature, most of education, large chunks of philosophy, large chunks of anthropology, parts of history, and large chunks of area studies.

[']['ear]

I base my opinion on a field's quality of research (falsifiability, reliability of measures, logical consistency of theory, replicable results, generalizable, etc.). When most research in a field is based on mental masturbation, I don't think very highly of it.

Then how do you justify your career choice?

Off the top of my head: social theory, literature, most of education, large chunks of philosophy, large chunks of anthropology, parts of history, and large chunks of area studies.

I'm not going to disagree with you on these, but anthropology and sociology do as well or better than polisci. And psychology is far more experimentally rigorous than economics.


But you only answer half of the question. You seem to be ranking rigor, but is that equivalent to "value?"

[Loki]

Then how do you justify your career choice?

I could link you to a few articles and you can tell me how rigorous it is.

I'm not going to disagree with you on these, but anthropology and sociology do as well or better than polisci. And psychology is far more experimentally rigorous than economics.

And you're basing this on what? Have you read the relevant journals? Psych is on about the same level as economics, and both are head of poli sci. Sociology has its good aspects, but is lacking in rigor (with some exceptions). A vast majority of anthropology is unsubstantiated crap (referring to social/cultural anthropology; never came across the other sub-fields).

[Illusions]

I base my opinion on a field's quality of research (falsifiability, reliability of measures, logical consistency of theory, replicable results, generalizable, etc.).

...I have to ask though, what about fields that aren't primarily centered around research? For instance, any of the creative fields, from regular fine arts, to culinary arts, or even music. They all have their own theories that need to be taught, along with tried and true concepts, but do not involve research in the sense like how the sciences or mathematics do (although they can rely on research done in the sciences or mathematics, or intertwine with them depending on the discipline being taught).

[Loki]

...I have to ask though, what about fields that aren't primarily centered around research? For instance, any of the creative fields, from regular fine arts, to culinary arts, or even music. They all have their own theories that need to be taught, along with tried and true concepts, but do not involve research in the sense like how the sciences or mathematics do (although they can rely on research done in the sciences or mathematics, or intertwine with them depending on the discipline being taught).

Fair enough. Those fields are inherently subjective, and as long as they don't claim to be developing a "science" of art/music (which they have in the past), there's no reason to criticize them.

[Shipper]

But you only answer half of the question. You seem to be ranking rigor, but is that equivalent to "value?"

That reminds me of this passage. I'll just quote it, since Nietzsche obviously said it better than I could:

On the whole, scientific methods are at least as important as any other result of research: for it is upon the insight into method that the scientific spirit depends: and if these methods were lost, then all the results of science could not prevent a renewed triumph of superstition and nonsense. Clever people may learn as much as they wish of the results of science -- still one will always notice in their conversation, and especially in their hypotheses, that they lack the scientific spirit; they do not have that instinctive mistrust of the aberrations of thought which through long training are deeply rooted in the soul of every scientific person. They are content to find any hypothesis at all concerning some matter; then they are all fire and flame for it and think that is enough. To have an opinion means for them to fanaticize for it and thenceforth to press it to their hearts as a conviction. If something is unexplained, they grow hot over the first notion that comes into their heads and looks like an explanation -- which results progressively in the worst consequences, especially in the sphere of politics. For that reason everyone should now study at least one science from the bottom up: then he will know what method means and how important is utmost circumspection.

First of all, what is the aim of academic disciplines? Is it the pursuit of knowledge, or the discovery of truth? If so, the "truth" that I know is an elusive idea. Part of what's so beautiful about science is that it institutionalizes an inductive approach to solving this problem -- it operates (theoretically) based not on dogma, but by consensus -- consensus based on findings that have been rigorously attained in the most accurate manner we've devised. In other words, science is the best solution we have to the subjectivity inherent to the experience of reality, but the integrity of the solution depends on the integrity of the findings, which in turn depend on the integrity of the process.

Whenever I'm looking for knowledge outside of my field, I have to be honest with myself and recognize that I do not have the expertise or the time, really, to falsify that knowledge. I have to trust the expertise of whatever researcher I've chosen to answer my questions. So, basically, the extent to which I respect a discipline in general depends on the assumptions that I feel comfortable making, based on my observations of that discipline's processes, about the integrity of what I'm reading. I agree with Loki that a large part of philosophy, sociology, and other related disciplines is absolute bunk, but that doesn't mean I write off all philosophers, sociologists, etc as incompetent or notional. The difference is that I have to spend time wading through the material picking and choosing the philosophers and sociologists whose thought processes I deem sound. And ultimately, since I can't falsify what they've found to be true, I can't in good conscience use that knowledge as a basis for most meaningful actions, especially that of, as Nietzsche says, governance.

In other words, if I'm looking for useful, practical knowledge, yes, the process of, say, physics makes it far more valuable than anthropology. And if I have to make a blind choice between trusting the subjective judgment of an anonymous physicist or that of an anonymous literary critic, I'm going to choose the physicist every time. I find the likelihood that the physicist will have developed sound judgment and a "mistrust of the aberrations of thought," as a result of his dedication to his discipline, much higher.

Fair enough. Those fields are inherently subjective, and as long as they don't claim to be developing a "science" of art/music (which they have in the past), there's no reason to criticize them.

I also agree with this. That's why, at the beginning of my post, I raised the question: what is the aim of the discipline in question?

In "philosophy," for instance, you can see conflicting aims: there is metaphysics, a sort of proto-science aimed at uncovering essential truths, which probably isn't trustworthy by contemporary standards, but there is also a field of "philosophy" dedicated to the dissection of rhetoric and the identification of fallacies. Were I in a position of power, I wouldn't resort to the former to justify my decisions, but I would resort to the latter if my aim was persuasion, or even understanding my own arguments and thinking.

[Aimless]

I keep forgetting to save this post and due to a very annoying invalid session error I keep losing it. I'm just going to post two of the questions that I've been wondering about, and I ask that you excuse the sloppy writing.

1. Does the presence or absence of a consensus among experts in a field--regarding important problems in that field--matter? Eg. if there's one Harvard professor in economics that claims that unrestricted free trade is the best thing imaginable for a developing country while a Princeton professor in economics thinks that many developing countries would be better served by trying to shelter their own industries at first even if that would come with its own attendant problems.

2. Do political scientists solve important real world problems other than the problem of feeding themselves?? I seek not to mock but to understand, because my knowledge of political science is so limited that I don't even know what questions it asks

[Loki]

1. Does the presence or absence of a consensus among experts in a field--regarding important problems in that field--matter? Eg. if there's one Harvard professor in economics that claims that unrestricted free trade is the best thing imaginable for a developing country while a Princeton professor in economics thinks that many developing countries would be better served by trying to shelter their own industries at first even if that would come with its own attendant problems.

That's more of a policy issue than a science one. If scientists disagree about whether a certain drug works, does that mean the underlying biology is suspect? There are a lot of economics theorems, and some of them contradict one another at the margins, which means that reasonable people can disagree about the proper policy prescriptions in unique circumstances. Furthermore, science doesn't tell you what goals to pursue. One economist can say free trade is better because it maximizes growth, while another economist might prefer subsidies because it promotes equality. The disagreement is then not over actual economics, but over ideological beliefs.

2. Do political scientists solve important real world problems other than the problem of feeding themselves?? I seek not to mock but to understand, because my knowledge of political science is so limited that I don't even know what questions it asks

The Democratic peace? Resource curse? Importance of central bank independence? Deterrence? Helping write constitutions? You're right, no real world application.

[Spawnie]

Has any political scientist ever solved any of those problems?

[Loki]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom

[Aimless]

That's more of a policy issue than a science one. If scientists disagree about whether a certain drug works, does that mean the underlying biology is suspect?

I think that sort of disagreement signals incomplete knowledge and/or incomplete understanding in that particular area of research, of underlying biological mechanisms as well as of the methods used. It can also imply that you don't necessarily have to be right or excellent in order to be a successful scientist in medical research, as long as your work is rigorous enough and exciting enough to pass peer review somewhere. Perhaps an answer to the question of how respectable pharmaceutical research is or should be, in my view

With that said, in the end there's still a demand for verification in the real world, eg. from long-term studies from which we may learn that our initial understanding was flawed, or that our assumptions were incorrect, and that we can't justify prescribing a particular drug to a particular category of patients.

A lack of consensus bothers me, esp. when it implies that a lot of people in a field are wrong. Of course, when there is consensus I am suspicious of bias, so I guess there's just no pleasing me.

There are a lot of economics theorems, and some of them contradict one another at the margins, which means that reasonable people can disagree about the proper policy prescriptions in unique circumstances.

Furthermore, science doesn't tell you what goals to pursue. One economist can say free trade is better because it maximizes growth, while another economist might prefer subsidies because it promotes equality. The disagreement is then not over actual economics, but over ideological beliefs.

But what happens when the first economist claims that attempting to reduce inequality will hamper growth, while the second economist claims that too great a level of inequality can hamper economic growth? And each will claim the other's approach will result in a less lovely society.

You've pointed out that economic models are of necessity simplified approximations of the real world, and that they have to make certain assumptions. I can accept that an economic model complicated enough to explain everything would be rather useless as a model, but I also think that economists have a far-too-high tolerance for the incorrect conclusions that arise when they apply their models to a reality where their assumptions are incorrect. Eg. when they mistakenly conclude that that the US market price of a drug accurately reflects the medical value of the drug and the cost of R&D

I'm rambling now, but I'll try to return to this once I've gotten some sleep and some more time to think

The Democratic peace? Resource curse? Importance of central bank independence? Deterrence? Helping write constitutions? You're right, no real world application.

I didn't claim that it's useless, I merely said I didn't know what its uses are