7 ms·

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 unive

by 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.
        3y ago
bigbillheck 3y ago
You can't reproduce a supernova (or at least I can't).

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.
      - 3y ago

bigbillheck 3y ago

You can't reproduce a supernova (or at least I can't).