Reading Analysis #3 "What Social Sciences Does - and Doesn't - Know" (09/25/2011)

A)
      This reading was really interesting and straight forward about reality. I think one of the most interesting concepts of the reading is when the author starts explaining us how criminology had tried really hard to establish a program that could prevent or reduce crimes that would work the same everywhere. How the only thing that have establish is the fact that what can work somewhere can fail in another place. So our world has not yet reach the period of a true understanding of the human behavior and therefore having a control or prediction of it. Some parts of this reading are intuitive since we know human behavior can show trends but never a standard and an always predictable behavior.
      Another factor that seemed very interesting for me was that the experimental approach is the most effective approach. What I understood from this reading is that companies and business spent a lot of time analyzing factors to make the best decision when others like the one the author was involve just experiment instead of analyzing and based on the results decide. Like the example of the blue and white envelopes. The business didn't realize which one should be used so they just sent out 50,000 thousand envelopes of each color to see results. It seems I can conclude social science will always have the factor that can never me control which is the characteristics human have of being spontaneous and unpredictable.


B)

1. Is there really a possibility that social sciences like criminology get to establish a complete understanding, prediction and control over human behavior or in reality this will be the same for a lot more years? For example: So will there someday be an actual a crime reduction program that works efficiently everywhere?
2. Can social sciences become as exact as natural sciences or they will always have that debatable factor? (Does this mean that meanwhile a lot of aspects of social sciences are debatable?)
3. The author said that experimental approach is probably the best approach when decisions have to be made, but this is not always cost effective. When a decision has to be made should analysis be avoided and a trial and error process of decision be used or is there things we can decide without experimenting? 
4. Who says the experiment are not bias? since experimental samples might be predetermines or not big enough to make good assumptions or to have a good experimental result. 

C)
This reading will make all of the students to think critical and analytic at all times. This is not only applicable in natural sciences but also in social sciences. This means that after reading this article will show question things a lot more and know that there will never be somebody that truly predicts eocnomics in a correct manner at all times. Even economic Nobel winners tend to disagree among themselves proving our point that nobody knows everything. Another important learning is that experimental approach is the most efficient.