It is becoming more common to hear SEO professionals describe the discipline as a Social Science. This has to do with the growth of web 2.0, user generated content and social media sites that developed the foundation for marketers to drive viral marketing campaigns.

So the practice of SEO moves away from algorithm reverse engineering and becomes an activity whose main focus is on influencing people.

Of course, half of the statement above is false. Algorithm reverse engineering is still a great component of good SEO, as well as competitive analysis, link analysis, link building, on page optimization, keyword density optimization, etc.

In fact, many if not all the aspects of SEO that do not have to with Viral Marketing are still as relevant as they ever were. They are still relevant, but they are becoming increasingly commoditized for a number of reasons that exceed the limits of this post.

Marketers are realizing the explosive power of linkbait and viral marketing which has to do basically with two variables:

• content creation, and
• networking

Both of which are easy to categorize as “Social Science” because they have to do with influencing people.

But what the heck is “Science”? Is Social Science best described as being opposed to Exact Science? What is the difference between them?

The term is often used without a clear understanding of what it actually means.

The Issue With Empiric Evidence

From a strictly logical point of view, even though empiric evidence shows us that something has been in such a way until now, there is no logical reason that tells us that it will remain the same in the future.

For example, let’s look at the following scientific hypothesis: “All men and women die some day”. This is supported by empiric evidence. So far, we haven’t known any human being that lived past the hundred and something years.

The cells in human bodies go through a process in which they develop themselves until they reach certain point where they start an ageing and deteriorating process.

This is a fact. Not a logical deduction. In fact, there is nothing logical or rational about it. It is just the way it is.

Empirism Vs. Deduction

1+1 = 2

Now that’s logical. Can it be verified by empirism? No it can’t. Deductive knowledge operates this way. It is not looking at reality and trying to find out how reality works (that is empirism’s job.)

The deductive scientific knowledge is governed by one set of rules contained within what most of us refer to as “logic”. Given certain premises and the set of rules dictated by the logic, we can deduct a logical outcome.

Why am I ranting about this? Besides the fact that I enjoy making your head hurt, I think we need to get over the dichotomy “Social Science Vs. Exact Science” in which the SEO discipline tends to be misinterpreted.

Traditional SEO Is An Empiric Science

SEO has an empiric component, which has to do with the reverse engineering practice in which professionals interpret the reality of the SERPS and then attempt to apply the conclusions on ranking new sites (they attempt to verify their hypothesis.)

If the results are as expected, the hypothesis is verified. If the results are not as expected the scientist goes back to analyze the reality of the SERPS looking for more empiric evidence, then applies the new knowledge on an iterative cycle that only ends when the results are as expected.

Viral Marketing SEO Is Also An Empiric Science

Bait artists such as myself approach Viral Marketing from an empiric point of view. We research our audience, identify those elements that are known to work, and we use all this corpus of knowledge to create our hypothesis.

For example: My post titled “Top Ten Boob Jobs Gone Wrong (Pic)” will make the homepage of Digg if I am able to give it an initial push of 21 votes.

That is the hypothesis I elaborated after researching Digg users behavior and previous case studies. Next step in my scientific approach will be to verify or falsify my hypothesis.

So I go and perform the test. If the hypothesis is verified, I will leave it as is and consider it a “scientifically verified truth”.

If it is falsified I will:

• go back to the empiric field to collect more information
• develop a new hypothesis
• perform a new test

As you can see, the process is iterative.

So What’s The Point Of This Lengthy And Obscure Post?

• I want you to think about your SEO campaigns from a scientific standpoint
• I want to eliminate the misconception that exists in the dichotomy between Social Sciences and Natural Sciences
• I want to eliminate the misconception that equates “empiric verification” to “rational”
• I want you to think about the two basic forms of scientific knowledge so you are self aware of how you are making decisions that affect your marketing campaigns.

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!