6 ms·

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 t

by 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...
  - dahart 3y ago
    You know that “humanities” and “psychology” are not social science, right? Your first two links, and the quote you chose, are not even talking about social science. Your third link doesn’t actually argue that social science isn’t a science, it’s just a plea to be more careful, which is fine and fair. The title of this piece fits Betteridge’s law of headlines: the question (‘is “social science” an oxymoron?’) can clearly be answered with a “no”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines Also many of the commenters on that piece disagree with the article and have some valid points that this opinion piece is lacking in robustness and factual accuracy. So it seems like you’ve only linked to 3 opinion pieces by individuals, none of which actually back up your claim that social science is not a science, and for which there is little evidence of any widespread agreement, as opposed to Google’s dictionary definition of social science or the Wikipedia article on social science (that comes with over 3 dozen references) that I linked to. (BTW go ahead and look up any dictionary definition - OED & Merriam Webster both confirm that social science is a science.) I did search ‘why is social science not a science’ (which BTW is a biased priming question that presumes an answer - you can get lots of false information from Google this way), and the front page of results is a mix of opinion pieces, lots of articles that don’t actually challenge whether it’s a science, and pieces that flat-out contradict the question and confirm that social science is a science. I do think there’s a stronger argument to be made here to maybe kind-of half support your point of view, but you’re not yet convincing me or anyone else here that social science isn’t doing science, you’re only providing repeated evidence that you don’t really know what either science is or what social science is. The reason your comments closer to the top got flagged is because they’re actually false.

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...
- dahart 3y ago
  You know that “humanities” and “psychology” are not social science, right? Your first two links, and the quote you chose, are not even talking about social science. Your third link doesn’t actually argue that social science isn’t a science, it’s just a plea to be more careful, which is fine and fair. The title of this piece fits Betteridge’s law of headlines: the question (‘is “social science” an oxymoron?’) can clearly be answered with a “no”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines Also many of the commenters on that piece disagree with the article and have some valid points that this opinion piece is lacking in robustness and factual accuracy. So it seems like you’ve only linked to 3 opinion pieces by individuals, none of which actually back up your claim that social science is not a science, and for which there is little evidence of any widespread agreement, as opposed to Google’s dictionary definition of social science or the Wikipedia article on social science (that comes with over 3 dozen references) that I linked to. (BTW go ahead and look up any dictionary definition - OED & Merriam Webster both confirm that social science is a science.) I did search ‘why is social science not a science’ (which BTW is a biased priming question that presumes an answer - you can get lots of false information from Google this way), and the front page of results is a mix of opinion pieces, lots of articles that don’t actually challenge whether it’s a science, and pieces that flat-out contradict the question and confirm that social science is a science. I do think there’s a stronger argument to be made here to maybe kind-of half support your point of view, but you’re not yet convincing me or anyone else here that social science isn’t doing science, you’re only providing repeated evidence that you don’t really know what either science is or what social science is. The reason your comments closer to the top got flagged is because they’re actually false.