INNOGEN and ISSTI-Institute for the Study of Science, Technology & Innovation, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2010 Apr 7;5(4):e10068. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010068.
The hypothesis of a Hierarchy of the Sciences with physical sciences at the top, social sciences at the bottom, and biological sciences in-between is nearly 200 years old. This order is intuitive and reflected in many features of academic life, but whether it reflects the "hardness" of scientific research--i.e., the extent to which research questions and results are determined by data and theories as opposed to non-cognitive factors--is controversial. This study analysed 2434 papers published in all disciplines and that declared to have tested a hypothesis. It was determined how many papers reported a "positive" (full or partial) or "negative" support for the tested hypothesis. If the hierarchy hypothesis is correct, then researchers in "softer" sciences should have fewer constraints to their conscious and unconscious biases, and therefore report more positive outcomes. Results confirmed the predictions at all levels considered: discipline, domain and methodology broadly defined. Controlling for observed differences between pure and applied disciplines, and between papers testing one or several hypotheses, the odds of reporting a positive result were around 5 times higher among papers in the disciplines of Psychology and Psychiatry and Economics and Business compared to Space Science, 2.3 times higher in the domain of social sciences compared to the physical sciences, and 3.4 times higher in studies applying behavioural and social methodologies on people compared to physical and chemical studies on non-biological material. In all comparisons, biological studies had intermediate values. These results suggest that the nature of hypotheses tested and the logical and methodological rigour employed to test them vary systematically across disciplines and fields, depending on the complexity of the subject matter and possibly other factors (e.g., a field's level of historical and/or intellectual development). On the other hand, these results support the scientific status of the social sciences against claims that they are completely subjective, by showing that, when they adopt a scientific approach to discovery, they differ from the natural sciences only by a matter of degree.
科学等级假说认为,物理学处于顶端,社会科学处于底层,而生物学则处于中间。该假说已有近 200 年的历史,其顺序是直观的,并且反映在学术生活的许多特征中,但它是否反映了科学研究的“难度”——即研究问题和结果在多大程度上取决于数据和理论,而不是非认知因素——是有争议的。本研究分析了在所有学科发表的 2434 篇宣称已经检验过假设的论文。确定了有多少篇论文报告了对所测试假设的“正面”(全部或部分)或“负面”支持。如果等级假说正确,那么在“较软”科学领域的研究人员对其有意识和无意识偏见的限制应该较少,因此会报告更多的阳性结果。结果证实了在所有考虑的层次上的预测:广义上的学科、领域和方法论。在控制了纯科学和应用科学之间以及检验一个或多个假设的论文之间的观察差异后,与空间科学相比,心理学和精神病学以及经济学和商业领域的论文报告阳性结果的几率高出约 5 倍,与物理科学相比,社会科学领域的论文高出 2.3 倍,而在对人进行行为和社会方法研究的论文中,与对非生物材料进行物理和化学研究的论文相比,高出 3.4 倍。在所有比较中,生物学研究都具有中间值。这些结果表明,所测试的假设的性质以及用于测试假设的逻辑和方法严谨性在不同学科和领域中系统地变化,这取决于主题的复杂性和其他因素(例如,该领域的历史和/或知识发展水平)。另一方面,这些结果支持了社会科学的科学地位,反对它们完全主观的说法,表明当它们采用科学方法进行发现时,它们与自然科学的区别仅在于程度上的差异。