The social sciences, well done, cannot but illustrate the way God made man, or the way man is designed by nature. ‘Well done’ means methodologically well done: well informed by statistical, mathematical and logic sciences.
While man is free to choose he is not free to choose the consequences; they are built into the choices made. The social sciences can observe his choice (e.g. the choice to abort, or to marry, or to finish high school) and the consequences that flow from these choices. In this they illustrate some aspects of natural law in action (moral law in action) by making the connection between choice and consequences.
Longitudinal surveys (where the same people are tracked over time) are the most valuable for good social science. In them one can observe the choice and measure the pathway the person set in motion and the consequences that ensue over time, even over a life time if the survey continues long enough.
Of course, over time myriad factors modify such pathways. Sometimes new choices are choices that deliberately reverse pathways: by overcoming an addiction; by divorcing; even by remarrying the person they divorced!
What these instances illustrate is the difficulty of ‘PROVING’ causation, in the layman’s understanding of X choice caused Y outcome. Rather than supporting a determinist view of man, the social sciences support a “modifiable” view of man. For most of us this comports with our commonsense knowledge of ourselves: we can change, but only gradually in most instances. And quick changes most often evaporate rather quickly too. Desirable changes are growth in virtue, which happens slowly and only with repeated acts, repeated over long periods. Bad habits can form much more quickly as many addicts can attest.
The social sciences are social – to state the obvious, but an obvious truth forgotten most of the time by most of us, especially we Americans and those who hew to a radical individualism. Man is deeply relational and needs the support of those around him to keep doing what he does. If we change our social environment (those we relate to) we can change our behavior more easily. Thus to become holy some choose the company of others determined to achieve the same and enter a monastery, or deliberately choose a spouse who is intent on the same goal.
But children, the most socially dependent of all of us, do not get to choose their own company, their parents, their siblings, nor the neighborhood they live in. So it is rare for them to rise above the average behavior of their surroundings. It is possible but it is rare. How rare: check out the bell curve. Most are in the middle, very few at the extremes.
Being deeply relational we are most easily influenced when we are young. Hence parents’ concern to choose good schools, especially schools where the behavior of the other children comports with what they would like to see in their own. Good teachers in poor neighborhoods are thus some of the most valuable people in a nation: the ones who help those parents who are trying to give their children a leg up. They are the unsung heroes of the social infrastructure.
Good parents are careful to seeks and choose modifiers of their children’s’ behavior (or more precisely), they choose the environment (the social relationships) that will shape their children’s’ behavior.
Thus good parents (along with good teachers) are the “investors” in the future. They are the ones who work to have their children surpass them, to rise further in the next generation, not only in education and income (a common desire of parents) but in virtue and strength, in love, chastity and fidelity. That is how the social infrastructure is built and rebuilt.
Thus the social sciences, in their own way, inform us about the moral dimension of man’s behavior: about good and bad behaviors (though that language is too strong, too politically incorrect for the majority of social scientists; desirable / undesirable, functional / dysfunctional are more acceptable labels). But no matter the labels, the social sciences tend to flush out those conditions in which man thrives or wilts and the pathways thereto.
Thus they are in the service of the good and the true. It would be nice to say they are in the service of the beautiful but even for those who love the social sciences that may be a bit of a stretch, for the beauty of good people is hard to see behind the numbers and graphs of the social sciences. Maybe such capacities will emerge in the future, but for now readers of the social sciences will have to do with merely the true and the good.