5 ms·

Strong words and big generalisations, but let's assume you know what you're talking about. Take the social science I studied, linguistics. How does it lack fal

Strong words and big generalisations, but let's assume you know what you're talking about. Take the social science I studied, linguistics. How does it lack falsifiability? Theories of how languages evolved can be disproven by contradictory evidence in the same way theories would be in any scientific discipline. For example, we know English and German ultimately have a common ancestor, because we can see the similarities between their modern and older forms and explain them in terms of consistent sound changes, and we can systematically explain the differences between the older forms of the two languages such that we can reconstruct what we think is their precursor, and then show in the same fashion that they are related to other European languages. Now, if you believe English and German are in fact descended from ancient Chinese, you can falsify the current theory by showing how they could have evolved, but you can't, because any similarities are superficial and can't be explained systematically. Or did you mean only social sciences that you don't like? Which ones?

wtdata 7y ago
Sure, I can give you a good example about linguistics. Noam Chomsky’s theory of a universal grammar [1] in linguistics which is the de facto accepted theory, although there is data from other researchers like Dan Everett that totally disprove the Chomsky’s theory with at least one concrete example. [2] That is exactly the issue I am talking about. You have your in vogue theory in that field and everyone in the academia loves it, and when someone brings you concrete evidence of one of more cases where the theory clearly doesn't apply, what do linguistics do? They dismiss all evidence and carry on just using the theory that is popular. Can you just wonder what would happen in a real field of science if someone brought forward evidence that the de facto theory clearly doesn't apply in one measurement that was made and you couldn't find anything wrong with that observation or measurement? Can you even imagine if someone came forward with a clear case where the velocity of light in vacuum was surpassed by something else? Or if someone was able to measure precisely the momentum and position of a particle? Or if someone found that the environment affects the genes of a living being in order for it to adapt? Or if someone found evidence of fossils much older than we though life in Earth to be? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
  Like in any other field, initial theories can be flawed and it takes time to find convincing replacements. It's true that it's imperfect, but I think you have a blind spot for the same failings in other sciences.
  - buboard 7y ago
    One thing though is that a large body of research followed on the same path semi-blindly. Too much trust was placed on Chomsky's (brilliant on publication, but that was 70 years ago!) ideas that the brain might contain machinery for universal grammars. Other fields differ markedly on level of skepticism. That said, linguistics is not a science that is commonly referenced in politics, nor the exemplary "social science". It's arguably closer to hard sciences like mathematics. The science that are trusted when making public policy decisions are usually social/political science, psychology, economics et al.
  - Chris2048 7y ago
    > but I think you have a blind spot Do you have evidence supporting this Ad-Hom, or is it just an imperfect initial theory?
  - mc32 7y ago
    For me a big pet peeve is in the socsci there seems to be a cottage industry producing things like “a study in Manteca, CA, showed that buying meal kits has smaller carbon footprint than grocery store food”. But if you read you’ll find out they bought a few meal kits and made some big assumptions. But then you get a bunch of influences trying to be hip who push this without being critical. It could be a study on homelessness or addiction, etc.
- hadsed 7y ago
  You should read a bit about the revolution of physics in the late 1800s-early 1900s. There was just as much carrying on with theories that are popular despite mounting evidence to the contrary. The tide was so great that Ludwig Boltzmann committed suicide. Of course, eventually the evidence grew until it was impossible to ignore. But let's not forget that even physicists can succumb to what's in vogue. Physics does have a great culture of trying to combat this, though that has its own problems.
tasuki 7y ago
According to Wikipedia, science is "systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe". Testable explanations and predictions. Linguistics, interesting as it is, isn't science. Neither is mathematics. Does that mean linguistics and mathematics aren't worthwhile? Of course not!
- wtdata 7y ago
  Exactly. That's also something that is used as an argument, which is a strawman: You are refuting the validity of a number of fields if you don't accept them as sciences. There are plenty of very valid disciplines of human knowledge that aren't sciences (and they seem perfectly fine in not being sciences since they have a clear aim and methodology for their work that, by impossibility of what they do, just can't follow the scientific method). History is a clear example.
  - cygx 7y ago
    History is a clear example. Hypothesis: Troy existed Prediction: there's a buried city in asia minor Test: dig it up
    - mc32 7y ago
      Does it become archeology at that point, or archeology and paleontology in support of history?
      - AstralStorm 7y ago
        Both and more. (Linguistics, physics and genetics can chime in.) History is a big umbrella study domain, not one science. For example, it also embraces epistology, studies of warfare and studies of art. It builds hypotheses based on output of harder sciences and sparse evidence, which is also evaluated for veracity, as examples of low quality examples taken as evidence are becoming more visible all the time.
    - JetSpiegel 7y ago
lake99 7y ago
I don't think fields like linguistics, history, etc. are "social" in the ways that fields like sociology, gender studies, women's studies are. I don't know any instances where academic linguistics or history was accused of cases such as publishing gibberish, using wildly biased questionnaires, drawing wild conclusions, using small sample sizes, etc. Popular claims about "one in five women on college campuses are raped" or "77 cents to the dollar" are results of deeply flawed fields.

wtdata 7y ago

Sure, I can give you a good example about linguistics. Noam Chomsky’s theory of a universal grammar [1] in linguistics which is the de facto accepted theory, although there is data from other researchers like Dan Everett that totally disprove the Chomsky’s theory with at least one concrete example. [2] That is exactly the issue I am talking about. You have your in vogue theory in that field and everyone in the academia loves it, and when someone brings you concrete evidence of one of more cases where the theory clearly doesn't apply, what do linguistics do? They dismiss all evidence and carry on just using the theory that is popular. Can you just wonder what would happen in a real field of science if someone brought forward evidence that the de facto theory clearly doesn't apply in one measurement that was made and you couldn't find anything wrong with that observation or measurement? Can you even imagine if someone came forward with a clear case where the velocity of light in vacuum was surpassed by something else? Or if someone was able to measure precisely the momentum and position of a particle? Or if someone found that the environment affects the genes of a living being in order for it to adapt? Or if someone found evidence of fossils much older than we though life in Earth to be? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
Like in any other field, initial theories can be flawed and it takes time to find convincing replacements. It's true that it's imperfect, but I think you have a blind spot for the same failings in other sciences.
- buboard 7y ago
  One thing though is that a large body of research followed on the same path semi-blindly. Too much trust was placed on Chomsky's (brilliant on publication, but that was 70 years ago!) ideas that the brain might contain machinery for universal grammars. Other fields differ markedly on level of skepticism. That said, linguistics is not a science that is commonly referenced in politics, nor the exemplary "social science". It's arguably closer to hard sciences like mathematics. The science that are trusted when making public policy decisions are usually social/political science, psychology, economics et al.
- Chris2048 7y ago
  > but I think you have a blind spot Do you have evidence supporting this Ad-Hom, or is it just an imperfect initial theory?
- mc32 7y ago
  For me a big pet peeve is in the socsci there seems to be a cottage industry producing things like “a study in Manteca, CA, showed that buying meal kits has smaller carbon footprint than grocery store food”. But if you read you’ll find out they bought a few meal kits and made some big assumptions. But then you get a bunch of influences trying to be hip who push this without being critical. It could be a study on homelessness or addiction, etc.
hadsed 7y ago
You should read a bit about the revolution of physics in the late 1800s-early 1900s. There was just as much carrying on with theories that are popular despite mounting evidence to the contrary. The tide was so great that Ludwig Boltzmann committed suicide. Of course, eventually the evidence grew until it was impossible to ignore. But let's not forget that even physicists can succumb to what's in vogue. Physics does have a great culture of trying to combat this, though that has its own problems.

tasuki 7y ago

According to Wikipedia, science is "systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe". Testable explanations and predictions. Linguistics, interesting as it is, isn't science. Neither is mathematics. Does that mean linguistics and mathematics aren't worthwhile? Of course not!

wtdata 7y ago
Exactly. That's also something that is used as an argument, which is a strawman: You are refuting the validity of a number of fields if you don't accept them as sciences. There are plenty of very valid disciplines of human knowledge that aren't sciences (and they seem perfectly fine in not being sciences since they have a clear aim and methodology for their work that, by impossibility of what they do, just can't follow the scientific method). History is a clear example.
- cygx 7y ago
  History is a clear example. Hypothesis: Troy existed Prediction: there's a buried city in asia minor Test: dig it up
  - mc32 7y ago
    Does it become archeology at that point, or archeology and paleontology in support of history?
    - AstralStorm 7y ago
      Both and more. (Linguistics, physics and genetics can chime in.) History is a big umbrella study domain, not one science. For example, it also embraces epistology, studies of warfare and studies of art. It builds hypotheses based on output of harder sciences and sparse evidence, which is also evaluated for veracity, as examples of low quality examples taken as evidence are becoming more visible all the time.
  - JetSpiegel 7y ago

lake99 7y ago

I don't think fields like linguistics, history, etc. are "social" in the ways that fields like sociology, gender studies, women's studies are. I don't know any instances where academic linguistics or history was accused of cases such as publishing gibberish, using wildly biased questionnaires, drawing wild conclusions, using small sample sizes, etc. Popular claims about "one in five women on college campuses are raped" or "77 cents to the dollar" are results of deeply flawed fields.