 |
 |
***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org ***** Bettina Hoser wrote: > But about the general laws: physicists have a very long tradition of > finding laws in nature that did not look as though they have anything > in common. Later research found they had thouhg! So maybe it would be > a very good idea to let the physisicst look for general laws, while > the sociologists use the methods to gain mor insight into the > sociological questions. Hmm. But, indeed, there is no reason that sociologists (or anyone else) cannot find general laws, assuming such laws are there to be found. I think that the real question here is not one of physicists vs. sociologists, or lawfulness vs. unpredictability. The question is one of good science vs. bad science: does the particular theory being proposed in this case actually predict the phenomena for which the theory allegedly holds? Not having read the original piece, I cannot speak to that -- the short description of the result posted earlier _sounds_ inconsistent with known observations, but this might be due to miscommunication. (It would seem productive to get a better handle on what is being claimed, prior to having a debate over the truth or falsity of those claims.) Abstract debates over the applicability of the theories/methods of physics (or biology, computer science, etc.) to social science are amusing, but I'm not aware that anything useful has ever come of them. Talk is cheap: if a genuine advance can result from cross-application of ideas, then the way to prove it is to actually make the advance. This has happened before (e.g., the work of Rashevsky's group circa 1950, or the influence of Besag's biostatistical work on modern ERG models), and it will doubtless happen again. Nevertheless, I think the field is better served by a consideration of specific proposals than by sweeping arguments for/against the importation of physical or other ideas. (I'm surprised, in this regard, that no one here has pointed out that ERG/p* models are essentially thermodynamic in character. Recognizing this connection greatly facilitates the interpretation of some of the more unusual behaviors of these models, e.g., phase transitions and degeneracy. These issues are being explored by a number of people on this list, at least some of whom are explicitly incorporating statistical mechanical arguments/results into their work. Cross-fertilization works well in this case, because there is a strong substantive motivation for the modeling framework.) -Carter _____________________________________________________________________ SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.