4 ms·

I struggle to see what part of social science is morales or quasi religious beliefs mascarading as science. There is no cure.

poszlem 4y ago
At the very least we need to start demanding two things: falsifiability and reproducibility. We should stop calling "science" things that are unfalsifiable.
- apocalypstyx 4y ago
  In order to even do science we must first make certain non-falsifiable assumptions, fundamentally. This is a basic point of metaphysics and epistemology.
  - Kamq 4y ago
    Sure, but that's why metaphysics and epistemology aren't considered sciences. You wall off the non-falsifiable stuff in a box labeled "not science" and focus on the stuff that is falsifiable.
    - apocalypstyx 4y ago
      To do so is to take on metaphysical and epistemological positions inherently. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It's something that human consciousness seemingly has to do.
      - Kamq 4y ago
        Yes, but that's a limitation of humans. Science doesn't care about which ones you pick. You can be doing science with any set of initial non-falsifiable assumptions that humans are capable of holding.
  - porknubbins 4y ago
    Nevertheless we can easily point to the useful practical inventions of physics, chemistry, biology etc. So whether they are based on non-falsifiable assumptions is kind of an abstract philosophical point. And that is an interesting discussion but it does not follow that in the real world that hard sciences and social sciences are on equal footing.
    - apocalypstyx 4y ago
      Yes. But then we must also realize that science is to have a very narrow band in society. To quote from Mike Alder's Newton's Flaming Laser Sword > It must also be said that, although one might much admire a genuine Newtonian philosopher if such could found, it would be unwise to invite one to a dinner party. Unwilling to discuss anything unless he understood it to a depth that most people never attain on anything, he would be a notably poor conversationalist. We can safely say that he would have no opinions on religion or politics, and his views on sex would tend either to the very theoretical or to the decidedly empirical, thus more or less ruling out discussion on anything of general interest. Not even Newton was a complete Newtonian, and it may be doubted if life generally offers the luxury of not having an opinion on anything that cannot be reduced to predicate calculus plus certified observation statements. While the Newtonian insistence on ensuring that any statement is testable by observation (or has logical consequences which are so testable) undoubtedly cuts out the crap, it also seems to cut out almost everything else as well.

poszlem 4y ago

At the very least we need to start demanding two things: falsifiability and reproducibility. We should stop calling "science" things that are unfalsifiable.

apocalypstyx 4y ago
In order to even do science we must first make certain non-falsifiable assumptions, fundamentally. This is a basic point of metaphysics and epistemology.
- Kamq 4y ago
  Sure, but that's why metaphysics and epistemology aren't considered sciences. You wall off the non-falsifiable stuff in a box labeled "not science" and focus on the stuff that is falsifiable.
  - apocalypstyx 4y ago
    To do so is to take on metaphysical and epistemological positions inherently. That is not necessarily a bad thing. It's something that human consciousness seemingly has to do.
    - Kamq 4y ago
      Yes, but that's a limitation of humans. Science doesn't care about which ones you pick. You can be doing science with any set of initial non-falsifiable assumptions that humans are capable of holding.
- porknubbins 4y ago
  Nevertheless we can easily point to the useful practical inventions of physics, chemistry, biology etc. So whether they are based on non-falsifiable assumptions is kind of an abstract philosophical point. And that is an interesting discussion but it does not follow that in the real world that hard sciences and social sciences are on equal footing.
  - apocalypstyx 4y ago
    Yes. But then we must also realize that science is to have a very narrow band in society. To quote from Mike Alder's Newton's Flaming Laser Sword > It must also be said that, although one might much admire a genuine Newtonian philosopher if such could found, it would be unwise to invite one to a dinner party. Unwilling to discuss anything unless he understood it to a depth that most people never attain on anything, he would be a notably poor conversationalist. We can safely say that he would have no opinions on religion or politics, and his views on sex would tend either to the very theoretical or to the decidedly empirical, thus more or less ruling out discussion on anything of general interest. Not even Newton was a complete Newtonian, and it may be doubted if life generally offers the luxury of not having an opinion on anything that cannot be reduced to predicate calculus plus certified observation statements. While the Newtonian insistence on ensuring that any statement is testable by observation (or has logical consequences which are so testable) undoubtedly cuts out the crap, it also seems to cut out almost everything else as well.