Constraints to Theory in Social Science

In chapter 1 (page 26) we begin our discussion of theories in science by first describing the ideal theories of physical science. In the text, we characterize those theories as "laws of nature" and show how they seek laws that explain physical phenomena universally. Thus, the Second Law of Thermodynamics or the Law of Gravity work on Earth and everywhere else.

Upon re-reading The Arrow of Time, I noted that Layzer described laws and constraints thusly:

• "Laws and constraints are complementary aspects of the physicist's description of nature. Laws describe the regularities underlying phenomena; they are few in number and each applies over a wide domain. Constraints serve to select from the set of all events governed by a given law the particular phenomenon of interest. The laws define what is possible, the constraints what is actual or relevant. (p. 58-59)"

He lists the constraints as well: they are initial conditions, boundary conditions, and symmetry conditions. Social science theories, too, are governed by the same constraints.

Initial conditions will constrain much of what a social science theory can explain or what interventions can be made to a social system. My colleague, Tommy Milford (a social worker), is especially sensitive to the description and implementation of initial conditions in his work because he realizes how important initial conditions are. Well thought out interventions, for example, may fail if they are applied without regard to initial conditions.

In physical science, boundary conditions may reflect a number of possible solutions, typically associated with different, corresponding differential equations. In social science, however, boundary conditions are more likely to be akin to the natural boundaries we describe in law-oriented theories (p. 28). Law-0riented theories are highly restricted by those naturally-occurring boundaries so that, for example, theories in cognition are not likely to shine much light on the area of personality. Furthermore, theories that attempt to address issues is such disparate areas are likely to be weaker than theories that stick to their knitting within their natural boundary conditions.

The discovery of symmetry in physical science is key to any argument for universality. If phenomenon is symmetrical, then it is true regardless of the observer's point of view. In social science, questions of symmetry revolve (again) around natural boundaries. We speak of gender, culture, class, and race as examples such natural boundaries (or symmetries). Social science data that transcend those boundaries are more universal than data that are not. Often, (think of culture) we are unable to break out of the prison imposed by our asymmetrical view of the world, often leading to tragic results. (Assuming, for example, that American troops would be greeted as liberators.)

To conclude, considering initial conditions, boundary conditions, and symmetry conditions is important in social science theorizing. The real world often imposes those constraints. Failing to see them or to account for them can lead to deficient theorizing.