5 ms·

What are your criteria?

ramblerman 8y ago
I'm not OP, but Karl Popper's notion of falsifiability places a lot of the social sciences in the domain of myth vs actual science.
- Scarblac 8y ago
  And yet, we want to know more about those subjects. We just have to make do with very limited falsifiability.
- rwnspace 8y ago
  Good job Popper's falsifiability is flawed then; else evolution is not science.
  - ramblerman 8y ago
    > It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested. [Popper, 1981] Certain things like 'carbon dating' are certainly scientific, and can be falsified. Evolution itself is the best historical explanation we have, but hard to set up an experiment to disprove. I personally think 'falsifiability" is particularly useful in separating a soft 'fact' like Freud's theory of the id, and the Oedipus Complex from something like say, the theory of gravity.
    - rwnspace 8y ago
      Agreed, it is useful, certainly. But it's not to be wielded without subtlety: notably in your quote the use of 'imo' and 'in many cases'. Anyway, apologies for the terseness. My gripe is just when it is used as a magic omnibullet in discussions about 'what is science?'.
rapsey 8y ago
They are all cargo cult sciences. Fields dominated by theories entirely unproven because they are practically unprovable. Those theories remain even after they are often demonstratably wrong. Look up replication crisis.
- ivraatiems 8y ago
  I don't buy your premise, but supposing I did, what alternative do you propose? The purpose of social science is to understand human society. Do you have some concept of a way to do that which you feel would be more clearly accurate or scientific than what's currently done? Bear in mind that the 'hard' sciences use theories which are partially or wholly incorrect, too; we still use Newtonian physics in many cases because they're easier to use as a model, even if they don't capture everything.
  - rapsey 8y ago
    > what alternative do you propose? That they don't call themselves science. Maybe call themselves studies and that they put more effort into what they call experiments. > we still use Newtonian physics in many cases because they're easier to use as a model, even if they don't capture everything. This is frankly a terrible example. Because it does not tell the whole story does not mean it is incorrect. There is no unifying theory of sociology either.
    - j88439h84 8y ago
      I believe there are a wide variety of methods used in social science. Are you specifically referring to small experiments conducted with undergrads in a classroom? Or do you have other targets in mind?
      - rapsey 8y ago
        > Are you specifically referring to small experiments conducted with undergrads in a classroom? No I'm talking about the entire field of social science being dominated by complete nonsense. See the following documentary: https://imgur.com/gallery/7EPPT https://imgur.com/gallery/7EPPT

I'm not OP, but Karl Popper's notion of falsifiability places a lot of the social sciences in the domain of myth vs actual science.

Scarblac 8y ago
And yet, we want to know more about those subjects. We just have to make do with very limited falsifiability.
rwnspace 8y ago
Good job Popper's falsifiability is flawed then; else evolution is not science.
- ramblerman 8y ago
  > It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as palaeontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested. [Popper, 1981] Certain things like 'carbon dating' are certainly scientific, and can be falsified. Evolution itself is the best historical explanation we have, but hard to set up an experiment to disprove. I personally think 'falsifiability" is particularly useful in separating a soft 'fact' like Freud's theory of the id, and the Oedipus Complex from something like say, the theory of gravity.
  - rwnspace 8y ago
    Agreed, it is useful, certainly. But it's not to be wielded without subtlety: notably in your quote the use of 'imo' and 'in many cases'. Anyway, apologies for the terseness. My gripe is just when it is used as a magic omnibullet in discussions about 'what is science?'.

rapsey 8y ago

They are all cargo cult sciences. Fields dominated by theories entirely unproven because they are practically unprovable. Those theories remain even after they are often demonstratably wrong. Look up replication crisis.

ivraatiems 8y ago
I don't buy your premise, but supposing I did, what alternative do you propose? The purpose of social science is to understand human society. Do you have some concept of a way to do that which you feel would be more clearly accurate or scientific than what's currently done? Bear in mind that the 'hard' sciences use theories which are partially or wholly incorrect, too; we still use Newtonian physics in many cases because they're easier to use as a model, even if they don't capture everything.
- rapsey 8y ago
  > what alternative do you propose? That they don't call themselves science. Maybe call themselves studies and that they put more effort into what they call experiments. > we still use Newtonian physics in many cases because they're easier to use as a model, even if they don't capture everything. This is frankly a terrible example. Because it does not tell the whole story does not mean it is incorrect. There is no unifying theory of sociology either.
  - j88439h84 8y ago
    I believe there are a wide variety of methods used in social science. Are you specifically referring to small experiments conducted with undergrads in a classroom? Or do you have other targets in mind?
    - rapsey 8y ago
      > Are you specifically referring to small experiments conducted with undergrads in a classroom? No I'm talking about the entire field of social science being dominated by complete nonsense. See the following documentary: https://imgur.com/gallery/7EPPT https://imgur.com/gallery/7EPPT