Well, let us admit, we all suffer from at least a mild case of “social sciences
inferiority complex.” So it seems does Kim Quaile Hill in his spirited defense of the “less
exact” part of academe. He finds his students' skepticism about (maybe even disdain for)
political science troubling and frustrating. He is unhappy with students questioning the
validity and certainty of social sciences. He fights back. However, his solution to the
problem is not only ill-conceived, but it has the potential of harming his (our?) own cause.
Instead of dealing with students' skepticism of the scientific character of social sciences,
he blames that skepticism on students' misperceptions and misconceptions about physical
sciences. Still, initially his argument sounds convincing when the misconceptions are framed
in terms of scientific illiteracy, pseudo-science, and superstition. The first impression
is—of course, how one can appreciate social sciences without a good understanding of science
in the more traditional hard-sciences sense. Yet, we quickly discover that is not the
author's point. It is the opposite. It is not so much about distrusting physical sciences,
but rather about trusting it too much. With so much faith in physical sciences, social
sciences are perceived as soft, inaccurate, and uncertain.