Social Science in the 20th Century

Social science in the twentieth century began with men like Pavlov, Watson, and Skinner. These were men that approached social science with the same techniques utilized in the hard sciences like physics, mathematics and biology. They applied systems of observation, controlled experiments, and careful documentation to advance their work. Later social scientists like those participating in the Stanford Prison experiments and Timothy Leary used methods that were a bit more radical. They were looking to explore issues that did not have the same type of measurable results as fields like behaviorism. Therefore, they had to come up with new techniques that many did not consider scientific

In order to prove a hypothesis scientifically, the evidence to support it must be replicable, quantifiable and objective. Many scientists would argue that separation between scientist and subject is also essential for the standard of proof. Social scientists such as Pavlov are easy to fit into these strict guidelines of “real” science. Pavlov could train an animal to respond to various stimuli repeatedly and in the same manner, such as causing a dog’s mouth to water at the sound of a bell or the activation of a light. These results could be seen and repeated by others using the same experimental controls as Pavlov’s original experiment. Watson, a pioneer of experiments using rats, has similarly quantifiable and repeatable track record for experiments. His work with mazes, among other things, are still used today and considered invaluable by many.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are social scientists such as Leary. His experiments with LSD and other hallucinogenic drugs have been criticized for their lack of scientific control. While Leary did utilize many traditional techniques for experimentation such as control groups, careful observation and record keeping, many of his experiments yielded widely varying results when replicated by others. In addition to this, Leary also included himself in many of his experiments often taking the same drugs that he was giving to his test subjects. Although he believed that it was necessary due to the unique nature of his field of study, he was often criticized for his lack of impartiality and objectivity regarding his experimental data. Like Leary, the events that took place during the Stanford Prison experiments took criticism for its nontraditional approach to social science. The primary criticism of this experiment is that the lead scientist, Professor Philip Zimbardo, like Leary, got too involved in experiment since he was also the “Head Warden” of the prison. Zimbardo even admits this himself when pressed by a student to stop the experiment that had escalated out of hand.

Today, social science seems to hang in a balance between traditionalist and radical scientists. However different their techniques, both groups have produced a vast amount of very interesting data and answers to age-old questions. In that respect, the techniques used to attain this knowledge seem a little less important. However, the more radical techniques have not yielded evidence that is a solid as more traditional experiments. While it is an interesting experiment to give someone LSD without their knowledge (as agents of the CIA’s MK-Ultra program did), without including other elements of the hard sciences, the results can yield little more than trivial data. It seems like Leary and Zimbardo mixed their radical and traditional sides enough to produce at the very least, a good scientific start to explaining the full effects of LSD, imprisonment and other social topics. Overall, the twentieth century social scientists have asked difficult questions and found sufficiently credible means to explore those topics by stretching the rules of science and breaking them as little as possible.