Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T04:39:41.845Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Control Factor in Social Experimentation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

T. Foster Lindley
T. Foster Lindley*
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When the terms ‘control’ and ‘experiment’ are used in reference to the methodological procedures of the social sciences, frequently the question is raised as to whether or not the investigator uses the terms in the same sense as the natural scientist. The purpose of this paper is to show that the social scientist has good reason to use them in the same sense and that in fact this usage is consistent with a long tradition of social research. This will be shown by an investigation of some common assumptions in the social sciences, such as, (a) the claim that the social sciences are younger than the natural sciences and that the former have depended upon the latter for methodological cues, (b) that human behavior is ultimately inexplicable and unpredictable, and (c) that the social scientist is unable to observe human behavior under controlled, experimental conditions except in trivial instances. Of course, not all social scientists make these assumptions but they occur in the literature and their significance is considerable when the scientific status of the social sciences is being discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , July 1954 , pp. 260 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1954

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Aristotle, Politics.Google Scholar
2. Churchman, C. W. and Ackoff, R. L., “Purposive Behavior and Cybernetics,” Social Forces, No. 1, Volume 29, October 1950. Pp. 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Conant, James B., On Understanding Science, New York: 1951.Google Scholar
4. Demos, Raphael, The Philosophy of Plato, 1939.10.2307/2180787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Deutsch, Karl, “Mechanism, Teleology and Mind,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, No. 2, Volume XIII, December, 1951. Pp. 185–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Fishbein, Morris (editor), “The Treatment of Shock from Prolonged Exposure to Cold,” (editorial) Journal of the American Medical Association, No. 9, Volume 130, March 2, 1946. Pp. 572–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Mill, J. S., “On the Definition of Political Economy and on the Method of Investigation Proper to It,” Ernest Nagel, John Stuart Mill's Philosophy of Scientific Method, New York: 1950. Pp. 407–440. First appeared in the Westminster Review, October, 1836.Google Scholar
8. Molnar, G. W., “Survival of Hypothermia by Men Immersed in the Ocean,” Journal of the American Medical Association, No. 13, Volume 131, July 27, 1946. Pp. 1046–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Plato, Laws.Google Scholar
10. Plato, Republic.Google Scholar
11. Plato, Statesynan.Google Scholar
12. Plato, Timaeus.Google Scholar
13. Plutarch, , Lives.Google Scholar
14. Popper, Karl, The Open Society and Its Enemies, Princeton: 1950.Google Scholar
15. Russell, Bertrand, History of Western Philosophy, London: 1946.Google Scholar
16. Skinner, B. F., Walden Two, New York: 1948.Google Scholar
17. Watson, John B., Behaviorism, New York: 1924.Google Scholar
18. Wild, John, Plato's Theory of Man, An Introduction to the Realistic Philosophy of Culture, 1946.CrossRefGoogle Scholar