5 ms·

There's little evidence social "scientists" are really scientists

pron 10y ago
I'm not sure, but there's certainly plenty of evidence that they know a lot more about society than people who don't bother studying it at all.
- nameref 10y ago
  What sort of evidence? This argument smells a bit circular. Sociologists know more about society because they're Sociologists? The entire field appears to be little more than a collection of fallacies in action. People ignorant of the conclusions of sociologists would likely intuit their way to better outcomes.
  - pron 10y ago
    > The entire field appears to be little more than a collection of fallacies in action It "appears" this way only to someone who is completely uninterested in anything more than a cursory look. After getting my bachelor's degree in mathematics, I went to grad school to study history (which entails studying some sociology), and I can tell you first hand that it is no such thing. Even a shallow overview of the social sciences and the rigorous methodologies they employ will convince you of that. Obviously, those are not exact sciences, and social researchers are well aware of that. But the rigor of their methods is not much different from those employed in, say, medicine. Does every social science result deserve the same degree of epistemological confidence as a mathematical theorem or a physics experiment? Of course not! Are there false or even ridiculous "results"? Certainly, although the field as a whole eventually rejects them. But it is far, far, more rigorous and valid than the beliefs of people based on personal observation and gut feeling. And I hope this is obvious: even an ancient Greek who looked up at the skies and took notes of stars' positions but knew nothing about gravity or Copernicus, knew more about astronomy that a person who isn't even interested in studying the skies and recording observations, regardless of how incomplete the Greek's knowledge was.
- kofejnik 10y ago
  astrologists and homeopaths would say that, as well
  - pron 10y ago
    The difference is that believers in homeopathy don't employ anything resembling the scientific method, and there's plenty of evidence against its validity. Social researchers absolutely do use the scientific method, and you don't have any evidence against the validity of their results (obviously, some are wrong -- just as in medicine -- but the field as a whole is serious and as rigorous as possible).
    - kofejnik 10y ago
      Just as I was preparing to answer your comment about physicists, you edited it. But wow, is this really your argument - "disprove the results or they are considered valid"? Ever heard of Russel's teapot? Using the method is nice, but let me know when they learn to reliably predict anything, such as election outcomes.
      - pron 10y ago
        And you let me know when mathematicians come up with ways to predict intractable processes. Sadly, dynamical systems are subject to similar undecidability and intractibility results as those affecting computer science. Biologists can't predict specific evolutionary adaptations, either, but that doesn't mean they don't understand the mechanics of evolution. Tracing the cause of a bug is much easier than predicting program behavior, but the fact that we can't predict a program's behavior doesn't mean that computer scientists don't understand the principles of computation. Intractable processes in general can be explained in retrospect, but not predicted. I'm not saying you should consider every social research result valid, but you cannot dismiss a discipline that employs rigorous observation and the scientific method by employing nothing of even remotely similar rigor. The burden of proof is on social researchers, but they have carried it as much as mathematically possible at present. What you cannot do is ignore the evidence by closing your eyes and saying it doesn't exist, or by picking bad apples as example. It's like an evolution denier saying that evolution is bogus because there are no fossils or whatever, and citing as evidence some cases of fake fossils.

pron 10y ago

I'm not sure, but there's certainly plenty of evidence that they know a lot more about society than people who don't bother studying it at all.

nameref 10y ago
What sort of evidence? This argument smells a bit circular. Sociologists know more about society because they're Sociologists? The entire field appears to be little more than a collection of fallacies in action. People ignorant of the conclusions of sociologists would likely intuit their way to better outcomes.
- pron 10y ago
  > The entire field appears to be little more than a collection of fallacies in action It "appears" this way only to someone who is completely uninterested in anything more than a cursory look. After getting my bachelor's degree in mathematics, I went to grad school to study history (which entails studying some sociology), and I can tell you first hand that it is no such thing. Even a shallow overview of the social sciences and the rigorous methodologies they employ will convince you of that. Obviously, those are not exact sciences, and social researchers are well aware of that. But the rigor of their methods is not much different from those employed in, say, medicine. Does every social science result deserve the same degree of epistemological confidence as a mathematical theorem or a physics experiment? Of course not! Are there false or even ridiculous "results"? Certainly, although the field as a whole eventually rejects them. But it is far, far, more rigorous and valid than the beliefs of people based on personal observation and gut feeling. And I hope this is obvious: even an ancient Greek who looked up at the skies and took notes of stars' positions but knew nothing about gravity or Copernicus, knew more about astronomy that a person who isn't even interested in studying the skies and recording observations, regardless of how incomplete the Greek's knowledge was.
kofejnik 10y ago
astrologists and homeopaths would say that, as well
- pron 10y ago
  The difference is that believers in homeopathy don't employ anything resembling the scientific method, and there's plenty of evidence against its validity. Social researchers absolutely do use the scientific method, and you don't have any evidence against the validity of their results (obviously, some are wrong -- just as in medicine -- but the field as a whole is serious and as rigorous as possible).
  - kofejnik 10y ago
    Just as I was preparing to answer your comment about physicists, you edited it. But wow, is this really your argument - "disprove the results or they are considered valid"? Ever heard of Russel's teapot? Using the method is nice, but let me know when they learn to reliably predict anything, such as election outcomes.
    - pron 10y ago
      And you let me know when mathematicians come up with ways to predict intractable processes. Sadly, dynamical systems are subject to similar undecidability and intractibility results as those affecting computer science. Biologists can't predict specific evolutionary adaptations, either, but that doesn't mean they don't understand the mechanics of evolution. Tracing the cause of a bug is much easier than predicting program behavior, but the fact that we can't predict a program's behavior doesn't mean that computer scientists don't understand the principles of computation. Intractable processes in general can be explained in retrospect, but not predicted. I'm not saying you should consider every social research result valid, but you cannot dismiss a discipline that employs rigorous observation and the scientific method by employing nothing of even remotely similar rigor. The burden of proof is on social researchers, but they have carried it as much as mathematically possible at present. What you cannot do is ignore the evidence by closing your eyes and saying it doesn't exist, or by picking bad apples as example. It's like an evolution denier saying that evolution is bogus because there are no fossils or whatever, and citing as evidence some cases of fake fossils.