Is Evolution in the Social Sciences a Theory or Thesis?

ABSTRACT: Generally speaking, the data of the social sciences is less quantifiable than that found in the physical sciences. Evolutionary studies in the social sciences are based on qualitative methods for the most part. The interpretation of their findings thus resemble the theses of historical research more than they do the quantifiable theories of the physical sciences.

Evolutionary theory in the social sciences is largely qualitative. It is methodologically based on theses more than it is on scientific theories. Theses are not theories. Let me explain this in a preliminary way. For one, evolution is weak on cause. Most of its process statements are not empirically testable. Also, referring to methodology, evolutionary theory traces prehistorical events using inferences based largely on fossil finds. This is in much the same way that historians write history based on inferences taken from archived data. The only interaction with the data here is mental. Theory and hypothesis do not tug on each other in tandem; they do not feedback on one another except, of course, in writing. Theses come out of the writing exercise; theories pour out of and on empirical research. Theses are tacked on to the end of a research report as its inspiration, justification and light background. Theories are mentioned throughout a research reports, serving as its rationale, organizational framework, and ultimate objective. Evolution in the social sciences handles theory, methodologically speaking, the way theses are developed and supported in history.

Sccial science studies of evolution do not test hypotheses in the physical science sense. They do not incorporate the use the practice of drawing up theory-derived hypotheses and running them through empirical tests, with the exception of some archeology and anthropological linguistics studies. Instead, studies tend to use the same kind of data processing and style of support as found in the studies of history. The subfields of archeology and anthropological linguistics I found to be more quantitative. But physical and cultural anthropology were not. They are largely qualitative in terms of the research enterprise. Many people believe evolutionary studies to be based on hypothesis testing. This is for the most part not true in the social sciences. Research about evolution in social science is run on a different basis than many people believe.

My bachelor's degree was a double major in education and the social sciences. Later, I was a graduate student and teaching assistant in history for a semester at a state university in the Midwest U.S. I did not flunk out; I got straight As in history. I changed my graduate study to the social sciences in the following semester. My masters degree was in anthropology. I studied as a doctoral student and worked as teaching assistant in anthropology for several years more. So I the had opportunity to see both disciplines in action, and write graduate papers for both departments.

Studying history taught me how history is written. Of course, there is some variety. But there are also general practices as well. So any conclusions we could draw are based on generalities, generalities that could be quantified and studied, as well. Historians essentially write theses about the written past and support them with arguments. These are used to build a thesis. Support is found for the thesis, and both are then checked by a professor or committee (one type of peer review). They are carefully scrutinized, but not by using the rigorous method of hypothesis generation and testing. Theses are not theories in the sense that they are not subject to any kind of rigorous quantitative tests, quantitative methods, or strict checklists. They also go through periods of change called revision rather like theories do, but thesis revision is more like a change of a point of view than of a world view. Theories do change. They undergo the much slower and more profound changes called paradigm shifts, at least as compared to the way change occurs in the physical sciences. Scientific theories use a more rigorous, deductive process of syphoning off hypotheses as derivations of a theory, rigorously designing them with committee oversight, conducting actual tests according to a methodology distinctive to a particular discipline, and then subjecting the results to evalutation in the form of peer review. Publication may or may not ensue based on additional factors. Ramifications to the theory are then pondered as a reflective, mental exercise essentially only after testing by peer review.

History uses a very different process of pondering a thesis throughout its generation and writing. There is no rigorous testing performed at any time; it is qualitative, too, meaning it generally contains no numerical data or statistical testing. Rationale, style, logic, and new supplementary information are the guides in thesis writing, by one individual. Peer review comes afterwards, not throughout the research.

Evolutionary theory in biology and genetics may be more rigorous than in the social sciences. I certainly hope so. These sciences are much more quantitative in their methodologies. But at least in the social sciences, evolution is a written using a style of argument and logical presentation of support in the form of anecdotal evidence for the most part. Some quanitative evidence is sometimes added in. It is included as a supplement when such exists, but it is extremely limited in terms of its use and ramifications for evaluation. In essence, the main argument ushers forth from the mind and views of a writer and his or her ability to persuade, not from a rigorous evaluation of research targets met or not met and any relevant data obtained.

If what I am saying here is correct, then the study of evolution is social studies, not social science. I apply this only to the soft (as contrasted to the hard) sciences. In these disciplines, it is most like historical studies in terms of its methodology and writing approach.