The Social Science Complex

I have just read through my second issue of New Scientist and I have come to the conclusion that my type of science will never be featured therein.

New Scientist devotes its pages to articles concerning those who regularly use test tubes and Geiger counters in their work. (You know, people who have legitimate cause to wear a lab coat-i.e. not me.)

The closest thing New Scientist had to a non-hard science article was an article on Alfred Russel Wallace, a self-taught biologist who came to the same conclusions as Darwin and shared credit with him over the theory of survival of the fittest. But even he had the respectable habit of pinning exotic bugs to display boards and he was recognized by the Linnean Society.

Will Social Science ever be taken seriously?

Is it too late for me to switch to Kea behaviors in social groups?

Sigh.

My "lab coat" is bound to be a rain-proof parka and in place of test tubes I have a digital recorder, pen and paper. 

Understanding the principles of physics is important. I too am intrigued by the weakness of the electromagnetic force found throughout the universe. 

I am also pleased by the research that suggest bilingualism keeps your brain flexible. 

But what about my interest of indigenous self governance? 

I suppose if I wanted to read about important breakthroughs in First Nations' struggle for autonomy I would have to search the pages of Psychology Today and even then, the article would probably be authored by someone with an M.D. and have a neuroscience slant (more lab coats and test tubes).

Is it possible to gain the respect of the scientific community when one has a weak grasp of the maths and no background in Organic Chemistry?

We shall see.