Dark Ages - A Review

Dark Ages: The Case for a Science of HumanGary Kleck's work on gun control. "Kleck's work is
Behavior by Lee McIntyre. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,inspiring," he writes. "Here's a liberal Democrat who's
2006. 121 pages, index. Hardcover; $24.95. ISBN:not bringing politics into the work. He's convinced that
0262134691.this is an empirical field, that he should gather data
During the period known as The Dark Ages, thewithout knowing in advance how it's going to turn
progress of Western civilization virtually stopped. Theout, and he ends up with some startling findings."
knowledge gained by scholars of the classical ageRelated to this lack of courage, he asserts, is the
was lost and for nearly 600 years "there were nofailure of the social sciences to adopt the self-critical
significant breakthroughs in art, science, philosophy, orempiricist methodology that has propelled the physical
literature". For those six centuries, life was governedand biological sciences to greatness. He recounts the
by superstition and fear fueled by ignorance. In theexample of the "cold fusion" fiasco of 1989 as an
introduction to this book, philosopher Lee C. McIntyreexample of how the validity of scientific knowledge is
raises the questions of what it would feel like to livepreserved by the constant vigilance of researchers
in a "dark age" and whether we would even realizewho seek the empirical falsification of proposed
that we were living in a dark age. The answer, hehypotheses. Unfortunately, he asserts, such attempts
suggests, is that it would feel just like our lives doat falsification are rarely made in the social sciences.
today, because we are living in a dark age whetherWhile I agree with the principles the asserts, I find
most of us know it or not.that like most philosophers of science he is lacking in
The re-discovery of the writings of Aristotle andknowledge or understanding of the real practical
other Classical thinkers in the Renaissance sparkedworkings of the social sciences. Kleck's work, for
the end of the dark ages in the humanities. Progressinstance, may diverge from his prior beliefs (neither
in the natural sciences, McIntyre points out, metMcIntyre nor I know what his prior beliefs were) but
violent opposition from the Catholic Church but washis findings are consistent with widely held and well
triumphant a few centuries later, althoughfinanced ideology. It is true that Kleck's work has
anti-evolutionists and global warming denialistsbeen attacked by many who are ideologically
continue to wage their battle against the naturalopposed to his findings but it has also been criticized
sciences. The social sciences, however, still have notfor its grave methodological weaknesses and for
emerged at all from the Dark Ages in his view.promoting conclusions that run contrary to evidence
The result of this continuing Dark Age of the socialfrom methodologically superior sources.
sciences is that we are as ignorant today of theMcIntyre shows a similar unfamiliarity with the issues
causes of human behavior as people centuries agoor the evidence when he discusses Herrnstein and
were of the causes of such natural phenomena asMurray's The Bell Curve, another book attacked on
disease, famine, and eclipses. We have progressed noideological grounds but also quite validly condemned
further in our understanding of what causes war,for bad science behind many of its assertions. For
crime, and poverty - and of how to end them - thaninstance, Kleck's estimate of the number of times
had our ancestors. What we need, McIntyre says, iseach year that someone shoots a criminal in self
another scientific revolution. We need the courage todefense exceeds the total number of gunshot
apply a more rigorous methodology to the study ofinjuries annually. Both Kleck's work and, even moreso,
human behavior and to go where the empiricalThe Bell Curve would have served better as
evidence leads us, even if it threatens our cherishedexamples of the ideologically driven social science
beliefs about human autonomy, race, class, andMcIntyre rightly condemns.
gender.He is even further off-base in asserting that
McIntyre lists the most common objections to thefalsification is a rarely used approach in the social
social sciences as true science. He then quitesciences. Certainly, if your idea of the social sciences
effectively exposes each as false. Academicincludes the ilk of Sigmund Freud, Milton Friedman,
philosophers might find both his list of objections andthen you are talking about social theories without
his refutations too cursory but this book is intendedscience of any sort. There are, however, many social
for a lay audience and he has offered a fuller versionand behavioral scientists who do apply the classical
of these arguments in his earlier published work,method of testing hypotheses. Their work fills
including his academic book Laws and Explanation innumerous scientific journals. And those journals are
the Social Sciences (Westview Press, 1996).committed to the same critical approach that
A major thrust of McIntyre's argument is that thecharacterized the physical sciences in the "cold fusion"
physical sciences once had to overcome the sameaffair. I don't suggest that the social sciences have
kinds of methodological and societal barriers that faceachieved that ideal state McIntyre describes, only
the social sciences today. Both physics andthat they are not so very far from it as he asserts.
astronomy had to free themselves of a disciplinaryDespite his strong commitment to ideology-free
mind-set that eschewed empirical testing and soughtscience, McIntyre makes his own ideological biases
truth through sheer intellectual speculation. Themanifest when he wonders how a rational person
authority of Aristotle, Scripture, and Church doctrinecan "believe in a concept so patently implausible as
blocked the way towards genuine advances.God". I can't help but wonder whether he would be
McIntyre devotes half a chapter to an account ofwilling to set aside his prior opinions in examining any
Galileo's battle for the heliocentric model of theissue regarding religion -- he certainly has not done so
universe as an illustration of how the natural sciencesin writing this book.
prevailed over the kinds of biases and methodologicalRegardless of these failings and his polemic style,
weaknesses that still plague the social sciences today.McIntyre's book offers an optimistic view with some
McIntyre argues that the social sciences can achievehighly practical suggestions for applying scientific rigor
the same kind of triumph if social scientist will onlyto the understanding of some of the most
show the courage and commitment to scientificfundamental problems facing us today. As he says in
method that Galileo did.closing, "A science of human behavior can lead the
In McIntyre's view, what is missing in today's socialway out of the current mess of unreason and
sciences is the scientific attitude -- the willingness totragedy that hangs over human affairs. The
accept what the evidence shows even if it clashesapplication of our highest form of reason, science, to
with precious religious or political ideologies. Ideally,the study of our social problems is our best hope for
social scientists should have "a propensity for beingsalvation. Even in a dark age, our reason can see us
surprised by what they find and the courage tothrough. Our future may well be brighter that we
investigate where they think the results might tellhave imagined it, for scientific inquiry is well equipped
them something they don't really want to know." Asto answer the questions that have been put by
his exemplar of such courage, he cites criminologisthuman misery. The world awaits our response.