Your comment about presenting “research artifacts … as the scientific truth” is illuminating. Research should be aimed at validating or disproving a hypothesis, therefore, no “artifact” can ever legitimately be called a “scientific result” – if there is an unforeseen result, it must then be input into a new hypothesis and experiment before being called scientific anything (and “truth” is not a very popular word in science).

Ten good Thai studies works? That’s a tall order. I have yet to see any works regarding Thai society that I have any scientific validity- but I am not a professional, and all I see are in the popular press or on web-boards like this, so maybe there’s a wealth of excellent research out there that I’ve not seen. My presence here is part of an attempt to find some. It’s been rather unsuccessful so far.

It also seems unproductive to me to “eagerly await” work by a non-professional with no exprience or knowledge in a particular area, but if that’s the best you can do, don’t let me stop you.

Best regards,

HP Boothe

Similarly, science has not left the field of Thai studies. Rather, it has never entered it (or has it?).

As for myself, I am rather pragmatic in my approach, that is, I don’t like works of social science that do not fulfill its professional standards. But I also don’t like “scientific” work that merely manages to produce some research artifacts and present them as the scientific truth.

In this context, I would be interested in knowing what “scientific” works on Thailand you think have contributed to the field of Thai studies. Ten titles would satisfy my curiosity.

I am also eagerly awaiting your “scientific”, hypotheses- and experiment-based work on the Sonthi/PAD protests, the coup, and the current constitution drafting. But I won’t hold my breath.

Scientific methodology consists of developing hypotheses, formulating experiments to validate or refute those hypotheses, and analyzing the results of the experiment to draw a conclusion about the original hypothesis. You have a better method for understanding the world and coming to useful conclusions? Perhaps you feel it’s more useful to use our own memories and experiences and argue with others who have different memories and experiences? Because that’s exactly what I see in Thai “social investigation”.

HP Boothe

I propose that since that is the case, the importance of that opinion vs. fact is even MORE critical, as a divergence between the two has serious consequences, like war. The way the American public was duped (with their own collusion, to be sure) into the current disaster, or the way the Thai public is duped points to MORE work relating opinion to fact, not less.

As for Srithanonchai’s concern that “measureable reality” is “bizarrely unrealistic”, would he “construct a reality” where he is confident in stepping in front a a speeding train?

“Measureable reality” is based on constructing theory that maximizes explanatory power while minimizing axiomatic inputs. It is not a philosophical debate, it is scientific method. If you don’t accept that, then we end up arguing spiritual truth and that FAR more difficult than any science.

Best regards,

HP Boothe

As an aside, to an epistemological constructivist, the idea of the existence of “measurable reality” is bizarrely unrealistic. There is nothing but constructions of reality (whether achieved deductively/analytically or inductively/qualitatively). And it is only these constructions that compete with each other. Scholarly constructions are only insofar different from other sorts of constructions as they are produced by controlled procedures.

“How is individual or even mass opinion on practical policy issues useful in isolation from what relation those opinions have on measurable reality? Consider that in 2002 a good proportion of the US believed that Saddam Hussein was associated with the 9/11 attacks to see just where ill-informed public opinon can lead.”

Because of the ‘one man, one vote’ system, I think it is important to know what peoples opinions are (especially mass opinion), irrespective of whether those opinions bear any relationship to measurable reality.

Political parties that can read (or manipulate) mass opinion are likely to be be more successful than those that cannot.

The financial problems in the 30-B health care plan, the structural problems in the rural development schemes, the rising consumption & debt in the countryside; none of these are opinions – all can be demonstrated conclusively. My prediction of a future debt crisis and of Thaksin coming back to “save” the country from problems he initiated are speculative of course – but I am unaware of how to research the future.

The reason I have “not provided more of what you claim to be missing” is because I am also unaware of how to provide what I am missing.

“How do you start a tutorial?” you ask. I would hope a tutorial would begin with a fact base. If I had such a fact base (e.g. statistics on village lending NPLs), I would certainly post them somewhere. However, I am not contending that these programs are or are not successful; I am contending that those who do should back up their claims with credible data, but apparently that’s asking for too much.

Again, I refer you to Mr. Walker’s post regarding the BMJ article that did analyze the 30-B health care scheme. It has to date generated one comment, a thanks for the post. No discussion, no conversation. I find it sad that actual research gets such a reception while so much attention goes to unsubstantiated, unverifiable speculation.

Best regards,

HP Boothe

I certainly do NOT want to comment on “local political culture” as I’ve not done any objective research into the issue and so therefore anything I have to say would inevitably be colored by personal experience. The inability to identify and account for observer bias is a major part of why so much of social science is scoffed at by analytical afficionados like myself. How is individual or even mass opinion on practical policy issues useful in isolation from what relation those opinions have on measurable reality? Consider that in 2002 a good proportion of the US believed that Saddam Hussein was associated with the 9/11 attacks to see just where ill-informed public opinon can lead.

If you are “selecting” your dataset, you are not conducting “research”. Research begins with a hypothesis and a sound methodology to test that hypothesis, and then proceeeds with data gathering . One does not “select” or “package” data to suit ones pre-determined outcome. That is propaganda, and please excuse me if your “confidence” that your quotes are “commonly held perspectives” is unconvincing. Whence does your confidence arise? What questions are you asking? How do you control for your being a foreigner asking these questions? What you have given is a laundry list of various comments that espouse a certain political viewpoint, and I don’t see how responding with another laundry list of opposing comments serves any purpose other than to show that there are differing opinions out there – of which I doubt there is a question.

I am certainly NOT interested in engaging with the argument that that the campaign for rural empowerment waged by NGOs and activist academics has contributed some ideological legitimacy to Thailand’s coup, because, as I mentioned before, I know nothing about it and anything I have to say would be as useless as the opinions you’ve posted. I do NOT think this is a topic worthy of debate – rather I think it is a topic worthy of research. Setting up social science research methodology is NOT easy, as Srithanonchai mentions, but that is not an excuse for dispensing with analysis completely and replacing it with a shouting match. Good social science research is few and far between, mostly because so many people think it’s nothing more than random interviews and pontificating, which is easy to do. Just note the number of comments on topics with no factual basis vs. the number of responses to the BMJ article about the 30-B health plan. The minute you start looking at facts, that’s the end of the conversation – to the detriment of actual development of any sort in Thailand.

Best regards,

HP Boothe