Evolutionary Economics

The Return Of Karl Popper: Is Social Science Really Different Than Natural Science?

The Return Of Karl Popper: Is Social Science Really Different Than Natural Science?

Mar 8, 2010

Social Scientist have contended for much of the last century that we cannot approach the study of human behavior with the same tools that we would use to study the natural world.  This is hogwash.  And I think Karl Popper, the great 20th century philosopher, would agree with me. Humans are animals, they are made up of chemicals and cells, their behavior is determined by a complex interaction of chemical processes and their lives are a network of cause and effect relations with other animals (some of which we’d call human).   If we are ever going to get a solid grasp on our own behavior, we’ll need to use the items from the large and well developed toolbox of natural science.

Nicholas Horton

Nicholas Horton

I'm a graduate student in mathematics at Portland State University. My areas of study are Quantum Game theory and Mathematical Biology with a focus in Evolution. Outside of Math, my science interests are in Evolution, Neuroscience, Theoretic Biolog…
RSS Feed
Don't Call Me Rational!

Don't Call Me Rational!

The ultimate cause of human behavior is the mind. The mind, an emergent property from the workings of collections of neurons, hormones, proteins, and other biochemical agents, controls everything every human does. From their intended actions to their subconscious actions, all of it is controlled by the human analogue of a central processing unit. Cognitive models in the social sciences and particularly in psychology and economics take seriously this point of view of the human decision maker and apply it to political, economic, and other social situations.One of the major ideas of the subject is that people are equipped with a cognitive “toolbox” that houses tools that help them to solve problems in different environments.

Were Dinosaurs Warm Blooded?

Were Dinosaurs Warm Blooded?

During the 1990’s there was a lot of discussion (yelling?) over the question of whether or not Dinosaurs were endothermic, that is, warm blooded. In the regular media there is still a pretty solid leaning toward the idea that they were.I’m inclined to say they weren’t. Here are two reasons why: