3 ms·

I bet there's a spectrum, even within 'science'. Some social science is rather empirically oriented, like demography. Others are less so, which doesn't make th

by Kinnard 10y ago

I bet there's a spectrum, even within 'science'. Some social science is rather empirically oriented, like demography. Others are less so, which doesn't make them any less useful, like frontier thesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Thesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Thesis And on top of all that, empiricism isn't the only method for discovering truth!

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
Social science is extremely complex and difficult to measure. It's not as simple as, say, chemistry, where you know the number of protons and electrons and can easily calculate the energy in reactions. We may simply lack the apparatus to fully comprehend social science. Neural networks as they stand might be the key, but they could also be a mere stepping stone, such as how Aristotle's belief of the world being formed by a handful of basic "elements" was a sufficient and necessary bridge to our contemporary understanding of the atomic and subatomic universe. It's probably not a good idea to take social science findings too seriously, but that doesn't make it bunk science. Just...imprecise.
- wyager 10y ago
  > that doesn't make it bunk science. Just...imprecise. The bunk level of a field that claims to be a science can be determined from its predictive power. The predictive power of almost any social science is very, very low.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    There is a lot we don't know about why people behave the way that they do. Even if one's findings turn out to be wrong, that doesn't dismiss the necessity to study the unknown. Would you have given up on space travel after the first few rockets exploded on the launchpad? Ironically, my parent post is being heavily downvoted for stating this opinion.
    - wyager 10y ago
      There's a difference between trying to create a scientific field and pretending you already have one.
      - Kinnard 10y ago
        Wouldn't the process still just be 'science' though even if the results are forthcoming?
maverick_iceman 10y ago
>And on top of all that, empiricism isn't the only method for discovering truth! What other method is there? Studying a rabbit's entrails?
- Kinnard 10y ago
  The deductive reasoning used, for example, in geometry has done quite well for humanity . . .
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    That's very sensitive to the quality of the starting axioms, though...

by Kinnard 10y ago

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago

Social science is extremely complex and difficult to measure. It's not as simple as, say, chemistry, where you know the number of protons and electrons and can easily calculate the energy in reactions. We may simply lack the apparatus to fully comprehend social science. Neural networks as they stand might be the key, but they could also be a mere stepping stone, such as how Aristotle's belief of the world being formed by a handful of basic "elements" was a sufficient and necessary bridge to our contemporary understanding of the atomic and subatomic universe. It's probably not a good idea to take social science findings too seriously, but that doesn't make it bunk science. Just...imprecise.

wyager 10y ago
> that doesn't make it bunk science. Just...imprecise. The bunk level of a field that claims to be a science can be determined from its predictive power. The predictive power of almost any social science is very, very low.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  There is a lot we don't know about why people behave the way that they do. Even if one's findings turn out to be wrong, that doesn't dismiss the necessity to study the unknown. Would you have given up on space travel after the first few rockets exploded on the launchpad? Ironically, my parent post is being heavily downvoted for stating this opinion.
  - wyager 10y ago
    There's a difference between trying to create a scientific field and pretending you already have one.
    - Kinnard 10y ago
      Wouldn't the process still just be 'science' though even if the results are forthcoming?

maverick_iceman 10y ago

>And on top of all that, empiricism isn't the only method for discovering truth! What other method is there? Studying a rabbit's entrails?

Kinnard 10y ago
The deductive reasoning used, for example, in geometry has done quite well for humanity . . .
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  That's very sensitive to the quality of the starting axioms, though...