5 ms·

What is unscientific about the article?

• xkcd1963 3y ago
  [flagged]
  • bigbillheck 3y ago
    The same could be said for astronomy.
    • xkcd1963 3y ago
      Astronomy is not a human science. It is a physical science that is concerned with the study of celestial objects such as stars, planets, galaxies, and the universe as a whole. Astronomers use mathematics, physics, and chemistry to explain the nature and motion of these objects. Astronomy is also the study of the origin, evolution, and composition of the universe, as well as the search for extraterrestrial life. Everything that falls within the scope of astronomy is based on natural phenomena, which means it is impossible to conduct experiments in a traditional laboratory setting. Astronomy is, therefore, solely based on observation and analysis in which the astronomer seeks to explain what is happening outside of Earth’s atmosphere.
      • InCityDreams 3y ago
        Perhaps they meant astrology?
      • dahart 3y ago
        Social sciences are also based on observation and analysis. That’s the definition of science: observing and analyzing to form testable predictions. Science is not defined by whether the subject is stars or humans, it is defined by the process.
        • xkcd1963 3y ago
          but they are not "exacta"
          • dahart 3y ago
            Neither is a lot of physical science. You might be forgetting that biology is a natural science, or that scientific fields like astrobiology exist where nothing at all has been shown yet in terms of life outside Earth, or that physics doesn’t know exactly how much dark matter & energy there is or even how gravity really works. And anyway, that’s all irrelevant because science is not defined by whether the results are exact or high precision or even highly reproducible. You seem to have a mistaken impression of what science means. If you are a curious person, it is really useful to understand how science is defined, and you can verify that social sciences are still science, and find out why social sciences really are sciences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science Math and logic are the fields that some people consider to be not science, because they’re not based on observing and analyzing.
            • xkcd1963 3y ago
              It doesn't matter what some self-proclaimed intellectuals define as "science". There is a difference between social "sciences" and STEM that make it important to be distinguished and it's unfair, and even dangerous to give social sciences the same credibility. I don't think it will be productive if I cite some websites in this comment since you can just google my point of view and will more or less find the same arguments.
              • bigbillheck 3y ago
                I can google many views and find arguments, that doesn't mean they're well-thought-out or even coherent.
              • dahart 3y ago
                Okay, I googled your claim, here’s what I get for the prompt “is social science a science?” “Social science is one of the branches of science, devoted to the study of societies and the relationships among individuals within those societies.” What are you even talking about now? Sure there is a difference between social science and, say, physics, which is why they have two different names. Yes they are different subjects. They are both branches of science though. Why are you moving your own goal posts? You weren’t arguing earlier that “there is a difference” between social science. You were arguing that social science is not science, which is false. I don’t know why you think casting doubt on Wikipedia using ad-hominem tactics is a good idea. That’s a pretty weak argument, you can do better. And why did you bring up STEM? Only the S stand for science. Technology, Engineering and Math are all not science primarily because they’re not primarily based on experimentation and observation. They involve some science here and there, but they are not considered science disciplines. It actually might be much more productive to cite some websites, especially if they’re actually trustworthy, than to claim someone somewhere agrees with you without providing any evidence at all. Let’s do some actual science on this question. I’ve given you two pieces of evidence that are widely trusted and widely cited, one of which was your suggestion. Now you give me two pieces of evidence that back up your claim that social science is not science.
      • bigbillheck 3y ago
        You can't reproduce a supernova (or at least I can't).
  • bogtog 3y ago
    They dropped over 17,000 wallets. Why do you think these results wouldn't reproduce?
    • xkcd1963 3y ago
      There are too many variables involved that could also play an influencing role.
      • renewiltord 3y ago
        If your epistemology does not allow you to have posteriors different from priors based on this information, it is going to model the world poorly. That's okay. It is not a sin to model the world poorly. But it is a sin to transmit your disease to others knowingly. No one is interested in broken epistemology.
        • xkcd1963 3y ago
          hey, im not the only one with this opinion. i find it confusing to call social sciences, sciences, because they are not the same.
• AndrewKemendo 3y ago
  It hasn’t been reproduced and does not offer any mechanism for deterministic prediction of future reproduction.
  • anigbrowl 3y ago
    The first time any experiment is done it hasn't been reproduced. The SI provides detailed information on experiment design, you're free to undertake your own reproduction effort.
  • leonheld 3y ago
    >It hasn’t been reproduced What? It has to start somewhere, doesn't it? Also, it clearly offers a basis for probabilistic analysis for future studies. How is this not science?
    • xkcd1963 3y ago
      We should make a hard distinction between science and social science.