4 ms·

That’s called an “opinion piece”, it is editorial content. Scientific American is a popular science publication. Most people read it for the scientific journali

by epgui 4y ago

That’s called an “opinion piece”, it is editorial content. Scientific American is a popular science publication. Most people read it for the scientific journalism, not for the opinion pieces. Editorial content is always going to be hit or miss.

jgalt212 4y ago
True, it's an opinion piece. On Anthropology and Sociology (at best), not Science.
- epgui 4y ago
  Anthropology and sociology are both sciences.
  - ddingus 4y ago
    It is not generally possible and or ethical to apply the scientific method to these topics to arrive at greater understanding. People who understand science also understand the method is the basis for science. It's a simple thing, and when applied yields understanding. Understanding isn't knowing in some absolute sense either. It's in the predictive sense. We do A and get B. Degrees of confidence, and scope of applicability are relevant here too. Old understanding is as valid today as it was upon realization, for example. It's that we understand more and or the outcome of that greater understanding puts the scope necessary to get things done, or improve on our body of understanding, well outside what older understanding can do for us. General Relativity works well, until it doesn't, in which case we must use Special Relativity, for example. The basic problems we've got with these two areas of interest is an inability to roll back the clock and repeat experiments. Secondly, people are unique entities, unlike atoms and other things we encounter and want to study, and given we are discussing people here, subjecting them to experiments has numerous ethical and legal concerns. What we can do is work with the data we do get as an artifact of the people and their agency as well as the machinery of society and apply rational, and people who are experienced in these areas would argue inferential thinking as well as deductive type thinking, post fact and arrive at something like understanding[1], but the nature of all that means confidence is low, repeatability for all but supremely exceptional circumstances, and most definitely not on any sort of demand, is off the table. Add all that up, and it's not really science in the basic sense applying the scientific method can add to our body of scientific understanding.[0] It can't be! We are denied the use of the method! [0] Ideally, our body of scientific understanding is all rooted in the scientific method. What we get from our study of these two won't be rooted in the scientific method. [1] This is not to say these areas of study have no value! They absolutely do have value. Please do not take my argument here as anything other than an attempt to clarify why they are not science.
  - jgalt212 4y ago
    The founder of this forum doesn't feel that way. > comparisons of programming languages either take the form of religious wars or undergraduate textbooks so determinedly neutral that they're really works of anthropology. http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
    - epgui 4y ago
      I think you’re reading too much into that. If the founder of this forum really believes sociology and anthropology aren’t sciences, then respectfully, he is categorically and unequivocally wrong. This is not controversial.
- lovelearning 4y ago
  I randomly searched the magazine's archives and found lots of articles on society, culture, and history in any year I looked. Any narrative that the magazine used to restrict itself to natural sciences and engineering seems false to me. 1906 snow sculptures; "money of savages" 1918 reorganization of a government health department 1929 construction in Washington and the role of the US Congress 1951 human resources of the US 1961 effects of air pollution on public health 1971 an early city in Iran 1980 census; whaling 1992 health care reform
  - jgalt212 4y ago
    I think you proved your own argument. The rate of opinion pieces in the SciAm recently seems to be north of 10X what it used to be.
    - lovelearning 4y ago
      Your, and GP's, comments gave me the impression that you thought humanities weren't touched by SciAm until recently. I think I proved that narrative wrong. It wasn't my narrative.
      - jgalt212 4y ago
        Under your very broad definition of touched, I'll concede the point.

by epgui 4y ago

jgalt212 4y ago

True, it's an opinion piece. On Anthropology and Sociology (at best), not Science.

epgui 4y ago
Anthropology and sociology are both sciences.
- ddingus 4y ago
  It is not generally possible and or ethical to apply the scientific method to these topics to arrive at greater understanding. People who understand science also understand the method is the basis for science. It's a simple thing, and when applied yields understanding. Understanding isn't knowing in some absolute sense either. It's in the predictive sense. We do A and get B. Degrees of confidence, and scope of applicability are relevant here too. Old understanding is as valid today as it was upon realization, for example. It's that we understand more and or the outcome of that greater understanding puts the scope necessary to get things done, or improve on our body of understanding, well outside what older understanding can do for us. General Relativity works well, until it doesn't, in which case we must use Special Relativity, for example. The basic problems we've got with these two areas of interest is an inability to roll back the clock and repeat experiments. Secondly, people are unique entities, unlike atoms and other things we encounter and want to study, and given we are discussing people here, subjecting them to experiments has numerous ethical and legal concerns. What we can do is work with the data we do get as an artifact of the people and their agency as well as the machinery of society and apply rational, and people who are experienced in these areas would argue inferential thinking as well as deductive type thinking, post fact and arrive at something like understanding[1], but the nature of all that means confidence is low, repeatability for all but supremely exceptional circumstances, and most definitely not on any sort of demand, is off the table. Add all that up, and it's not really science in the basic sense applying the scientific method can add to our body of scientific understanding.[0] It can't be! We are denied the use of the method! [0] Ideally, our body of scientific understanding is all rooted in the scientific method. What we get from our study of these two won't be rooted in the scientific method. [1] This is not to say these areas of study have no value! They absolutely do have value. Please do not take my argument here as anything other than an attempt to clarify why they are not science.
- jgalt212 4y ago
  The founder of this forum doesn't feel that way. > comparisons of programming languages either take the form of religious wars or undergraduate textbooks so determinedly neutral that they're really works of anthropology. http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
  - epgui 4y ago
    I think you’re reading too much into that. If the founder of this forum really believes sociology and anthropology aren’t sciences, then respectfully, he is categorically and unequivocally wrong. This is not controversial.
lovelearning 4y ago
I randomly searched the magazine's archives and found lots of articles on society, culture, and history in any year I looked. Any narrative that the magazine used to restrict itself to natural sciences and engineering seems false to me. 1906 snow sculptures; "money of savages" 1918 reorganization of a government health department 1929 construction in Washington and the role of the US Congress 1951 human resources of the US 1961 effects of air pollution on public health 1971 an early city in Iran 1980 census; whaling 1992 health care reform
- jgalt212 4y ago
  I think you proved your own argument. The rate of opinion pieces in the SciAm recently seems to be north of 10X what it used to be.
  - lovelearning 4y ago
    Your, and GP's, comments gave me the impression that you thought humanities weren't touched by SciAm until recently. I think I proved that narrative wrong. It wasn't my narrative.
    - jgalt212 4y ago
      Under your very broad definition of touched, I'll concede the point.