4 ms·

Social sciences are also based on observation and analysis. That’s the definition of science: observing and analyzing to form testable predictions. Science is n

by 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.
      - xkcd1963 3y ago
        Well, I would paraphrase my search differently "why is social science not a science" This one I had saved somewhere https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/literally-psyched/humanities-arent-a-science-stop-treating-them-like-one/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/literally-psyched/human... On psychology https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-jul-13-la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-jul-13-la-ol-blo... "But to claim it is “science” is inaccurate. Actually, it’s worse than that. It’s an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth." And excuse me if I allow myself to add a 3rd one https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-social-science-an-oxymoron-will-that-ever-change/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-social-s...

by dahart 3y ago

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.
    - xkcd1963 3y ago
      Well, I would paraphrase my search differently "why is social science not a science" This one I had saved somewhere https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/literally-psyched/humanities-arent-a-science-stop-treating-them-like-one/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/literally-psyched/human... On psychology https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-jul-13-la-ol-blowback-pscyhology-science-20120713-story.html https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2012-jul-13-la-ol-blo... "But to claim it is “science” is inaccurate. Actually, it’s worse than that. It’s an attempt to redefine science. Science, redefined, is no longer the empirical analysis of the natural world; instead, it is any topic that sprinkles a few numbers around. This is dangerous because, under such a loose definition, anything can qualify as science. And when anything qualifies as science, science can no longer claim to have a unique grasp on secular truth." And excuse me if I allow myself to add a 3rd one https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-social-science-an-oxymoron-will-that-ever-change/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-social-s...