4 ms·

Well, I would paraphrase my search differently "why is social science not a science" This one I had saved somewhere https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/litera

by 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.
- xkcd1963 3y ago
  I've the impression you didn't read or engage with the articles I provided at all. My comment closer to the top got flagged because some people who work in social "science" don't like it if someone tells them the truth.
  - dahart 3y ago
    Well, I guess like the rest of your comments, your impression is wrong and you’re making assumptions and jumping to unsupported conclusions. I read all three articles in their entirety, and the comments under them. They simply don’t back up your claim about social science vs science. Why do you believe people downvoting you work in social science, what actual evidence do you have for that? I would love to see that, I want to know how to identify the jobs and motivations of people responding to me.
    - xkcd1963 3y ago
      I don't think I'm wrong otherwise I'd stop arguing with you. But you insist stubbornly that I'm wrong without providing any good arguments. Regarding the downvoting, I don't have evidence for it, but you don't have evidence for your version either. My assumption is that you for some reason see the need to uphold social science as a science, and anything against that narration must be wrong automatically.
      - dahart 3y ago
        Aww come on, you can do better than this, I know you can. The ad-hominems are weak. Defend science with evidence and not assumption. Assume you might be wrong, and prove yourself right. The argument you’re attempting to make is older than both of us put together, and the talking points you’re repeating are well worn (and for the most part have lost the test of time), but there is still ample material out there. I’ve been giving you hints that there is a valid argument to make, but this isn’t it. What is science? Please define it. What is social science? What does a social scientist do, and why doesn’t it amount to science in your mind? What does a biologist do differently? Now answer this question carefully: why do so many people call it a science if it’s not? Why does social science have science in the name? Why do all the encyclopedias and dictionaries all define social science as a science, if you’re right? Why do you believe you know better than the experts that I’ve linked to? Things that might clarify the discussion include: why is it important to you to state that social science is not a field of science? What harm do you believe is being done by calling social science a science? You’ve argued that social science is not a science because it’s not exact, but the natural sciences are not exact. You’ve argued that science seeks to explain things based on observation and analysis, but social science does exactly that. You’ve argued that social science is “different” from STEM, which is circular (The S stands for the same science that occurs in the term “social science”) and pointing at the existence of some unspecified differences doesn’t do a single thing to demonstrate that social science is not a science or is failing to use the scientific method.

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.

xkcd1963 3y ago
I've the impression you didn't read or engage with the articles I provided at all. My comment closer to the top got flagged because some people who work in social "science" don't like it if someone tells them the truth.
- dahart 3y ago
  Well, I guess like the rest of your comments, your impression is wrong and you’re making assumptions and jumping to unsupported conclusions. I read all three articles in their entirety, and the comments under them. They simply don’t back up your claim about social science vs science. Why do you believe people downvoting you work in social science, what actual evidence do you have for that? I would love to see that, I want to know how to identify the jobs and motivations of people responding to me.
  - xkcd1963 3y ago
    I don't think I'm wrong otherwise I'd stop arguing with you. But you insist stubbornly that I'm wrong without providing any good arguments. Regarding the downvoting, I don't have evidence for it, but you don't have evidence for your version either. My assumption is that you for some reason see the need to uphold social science as a science, and anything against that narration must be wrong automatically.
    - dahart 3y ago
      Aww come on, you can do better than this, I know you can. The ad-hominems are weak. Defend science with evidence and not assumption. Assume you might be wrong, and prove yourself right. The argument you’re attempting to make is older than both of us put together, and the talking points you’re repeating are well worn (and for the most part have lost the test of time), but there is still ample material out there. I’ve been giving you hints that there is a valid argument to make, but this isn’t it. What is science? Please define it. What is social science? What does a social scientist do, and why doesn’t it amount to science in your mind? What does a biologist do differently? Now answer this question carefully: why do so many people call it a science if it’s not? Why does social science have science in the name? Why do all the encyclopedias and dictionaries all define social science as a science, if you’re right? Why do you believe you know better than the experts that I’ve linked to? Things that might clarify the discussion include: why is it important to you to state that social science is not a field of science? What harm do you believe is being done by calling social science a science? You’ve argued that social science is not a science because it’s not exact, but the natural sciences are not exact. You’ve argued that science seeks to explain things based on observation and analysis, but social science does exactly that. You’ve argued that social science is “different” from STEM, which is circular (The S stands for the same science that occurs in the term “social science”) and pointing at the existence of some unspecified differences doesn’t do a single thing to demonstrate that social science is not a science or is failing to use the scientific method.