News
After Court Restores Research Funding, Trump Still Has Paths to Target Harvard
News
‘Honestly, I’m Fine with It’: Eliot Residents Settle In to the Inn as Renovations Begin
News
He Represented Paul Toner. Now, He’s the Fundraising Frontrunner in Cambridge’s Municipal Elections.
News
Harvard College Laundry Prices Increase by 25 Cents
News
DOJ Sues Boston and Mayor Michelle Wu ’07 Over Sanctuary City Policy
To the Editors of the CRIMSON:
The Crimson of April 27, discussing the Social Relations Department, contains an implication that needs correction. It is quite correct to state that our disciplines contain more theory than fact. It is incorrect to imply that prospective concentrators can look to an early ending of this condition. Our primary interest is in the development of a systematic and rigorous body of social theory capable of predicting behavior. To state that we are getting more empirical is only to state that we are interested in the operation and materials by which we can test our theories.
Our "nebulousness" is, of course, a function of the newness of our science: but nebulousness exists on the frontiers of even the most advanced and rigorous of sciences,-- which we are not. Those of a "factual" inclination, therefore, have every right to suspect that they may be unhappy in any science. We do suggest, however, that even at our present relatively primitive level of theoretical development, our work is of some value to those interested in understanding important areas of behavior. Norman Birnbaum Michael Olmsted Teaching Fellows in Social Relations
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.