Ray T writes, inter alia:
> The social
>scientist does
>not accept that statistics about human activities are
>'observations'. The
>social scientist regards statistics as selections of data and
>starts from
>the point that the data can only be understood and used
>scientifically if
>the nature of the selection processes is taken into account.
I'm entirely with Ray in thinking that there are plenty of statisticians and
scientists, social and otherwise, who demonstrate either explicitly in
methodological pronouncements, or implicitly by their practice, that they
fail to understand the way in which so-called data are in fact artefacts.
But in terms of philosophy of science, this is all well-trodden ground; few
today would find controversial the notion that "facts" are theory-laden
(standard parable for undergraduates: Ptolemy and Kepler stand on a hill-top
viewing the dawn -- one sees the sun come up, the other sees the horizon
going down).
Nor would they have difficulty with the idea that the practice of
"collecting data" is in fact a theory-laden process of data creation.
On a different topic Ray writes:
Crime statistics are
>creations of the
>police as well as being records of incidents.
And, of course, of members of the public who sometimes choose not to report
crimes, for a variety of reason (and sometimes, of course, report crimes
that have not taken place...)
Julian Wells
******************************************************
Please think before you press the 'Reply' button! Note that if you press
the 'Reply' button your message will go the individual who posted this message
not to the list. With many mailers you will have a 'Reply-to-All' button that
will send automatically to the list address of <[log in to unmask]>. The
Radstats list is set up for public discussion so please be generous with your
thoughts and share them us all.
*******************************************************
|