I am enjoying the new (well, it was new when I started) Caldwell book on Hayek, and you sound precisely like a young Max Weber.

Ah positivism! We hardly knew ye.

Are you just saying that social scientists are influenced by their normative beliefs (in which case, even a paid-up positivist agrees with you, but likes to think that the process of scientific dispute will weed these biases out)?

Or are you saying that there is something about the human sciences which bridges the is-ought gap?

Social sciences, on the other hand, seem to be stuck in an endless descriptive phase. Yeah, assets have risen in value, but the dollar has fallen in value, so those assets have actually decreased in value relative to the foreigners who supply a lot of our goods, etc, etc. etc….blah blah.

Everybody has a different opinion about what is good or bad, worthless or valuable, etc. ‘Empirical’ research in the social sciences is impossible, IMHO

Surely this is true for science in general. We study economics because we want to learn how best to manipulate policy to acheive the desired results. We study physics because we want to learn how best to manipulate the rules we discover to acheive the desired results.

Also, to monkyboy. The difference between predictability in the hard and the social science is by degree. It’s all down to how far individual variables can be isolated and tested. This being true advances in neuroscience may well be the key to narrowing the gap.

Bernard,

I don’t see how the social sciences can help the current debate about Social Security reform.

If we could implement private accounts, see how it worked out fifty years later, then rewind the clock and see how the current program worked untouched, that would be science. Well, if we could try each way hundreds of times just to be sure, it would be science.