Kuhn rightfully attacked the textbook version of science, discussing how anomolies exist in almost every area. But, he misses a key point. Since Kuhn was a physicist and concentrated on physics, and since I am a physicist, let me concentrate on physics also.

The anomolies that exist in observation almost always go away after closer observation. For example, there was an anomoly in the orbit of the moon for decades. It was solved, not by replacing Newtonian mechanics, but by new techniques (Laplacian and Hamiltonian) that allowed for a more accurate depiction of Newtonian mechanics.

Given this, the burden on those who propose a scientific revolution is always rightfully high. There have been thousands proposed, and only a handful of true revolutions. And, when one occurs, the old theory has an honored place as a limit value case of the new theory. Newtonian mechanics is a special case of special relativity, general relativity, and quantum mechanics. Classical electromagnetics is a limit value case of quantum electrodyamics, which is a limit value case of electroweak.

Indeed, electroweak shows how quickly a theory can go from being laughed at to full acceptance. In late ‘73, early ‘74 Shelly Glashow was nearly laughed off the stage when he proposed electroweak. This theory predicted weak neutral currents, which were not found. When asked why they weren’t seen, Glashow said they were surpressed by a 4th quark….which was also not seen. Now, I know this is specialized stuff, but what is critical is Glashow proposed a theory that required two seperate observables that had never been seen. His main arguement for the theory was “it is too elegant to be false.” He offered to eat his hat in a year if charm and weak neutral currents were not found.

Well, by late ‘74, both were seen. Electroweak, by the time I was a high energy physicist in ‘77 was considered a very well validated theory and assumed to be true by the community. By the time I received my Phd, it was called “The Standard Model.”

The reason for this is obvious, the data quickly and strongly showed Glashow to be right. So, this was, virtually, an overnight revolution. In the case of QM, it took longer to do this; the case wasn’t as clear cut, etc. But, the data forced the theory down everyone’s throats. Historical social context mattered not a whit…indeed one of the Nobel prize winners for the theory was from India, which has a quite different historical social contest than California or Mass.

So, in summary, what social scientists need to remember is they are not physics, and the numerical analysis they use is often far closer to mathamatical systems untied to data than true science.

Social science research will be increasingly shared in the public sphere of new media, but not necessarily sufficiently nor by the most knowledgeable. To reach a critical mass at the public forum the messenger will undoubtedly need a humble and interdisciplinary stance. But, most importantly, societal re-valuation must occur within institutions and government. There are scores of social scientist awaiting support with grants or jobs for such research and engagement as you suggested. Going beyond books to communicating in rigorous debate and contributing to policy and matters more immediate will be opportunity enough. I can only hope that one day, not too far off, a job will be there for me.

Also, what are citizens informed about and what do they need to be informed about? And do the news that most people attend to provide much more than headlines, excepting the coverage during election campaigns.

If we are discussing ideals, fine – but social scientists also need to touch base with reality.