4 ms·

Look you get on my nerves with your tone. If you want to have a conversation thats fine, but if your message starts with Aww you are not worth my time.

by xkcd1963 3y ago

dahart 3y ago
Oh I’m sorry. Honestly. I do want to have a conversation. Is it possible you might have misinterpreted my “tone”? I was just trying to be encouraging and break the downward spiral of ad-hominem snark here, to get back to having a discussion about the issue rather than complaining about style. There is a valid argument to be made, and you’re failing to make it. It’s abundantly clear now that you are either unable or unwilling to respond to any of my argument at all (you have completely ignored every single direct point and question about what science is, what the definition of science is, and what social science is, and so far you’ve refused to even define the terms you’re making claims about - this isn’t helping your case). You did give me 3 opinion rants, but you haven’t provided any particularly relevant or compelling evidence of your claim that social science is not a science. And the fact of the matter is that social science is currently categorized as a branch of science, regardless of your opinion. I’m curious what your expertise is, and I’m curious where you got this opinion and why you keep it in the face of contrary evidence like the dictionary. I would have loved to come to a conclusion that recognizes there’s actually some nuance here, because there is, but I’m happy to call it here if you want since I have evidence that you don’t actually seem to want to discuss the issue you brought up.
- xkcd1963 3y ago
  If you remain friendly I'm willing to continue our conversation. What if we tried an approach with examples. What field as example is a social science to you?
  - dahart 3y ago
    Good. Would you mind reviewing the thread and answering some of the many questions I’ve asked that you haven’t answered? Specifically, for one, please define “science”, so we can get to the question of what is and what is not science. The claim that social science is not science is yours to justify. A list of social sciences is in the Wikipedia article I linked to already. Sociology and Anthropology would be good representative examples.
    - xkcd1963 3y ago
      https://www.thoughtco.com/is-anthropology-a-science-3971060 https://www.thoughtco.com/is-anthropology-a-science-3971060 https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/sociology-is-sociology-a-branch-of-science-answered/6252#:~:text=Sociology%20is%20not%20a%20science%20because%20it%20can't%20make,it%20is%20abstract%20in%20nature https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/sociology-is-so.... http://cognitionandculture.net/blogs/benson-salers-blog/anthropology-is-not-a-science-says-the-aaa/ http://cognitionandculture.net/blogs/benson-salers-blog/anth... https://etiennefd.substack.com/p/the-difference-between-science-and https://etiennefd.substack.com/p/the-difference-between-scie... I define science as anything that is scientifically rigorous. That does not include humanities or social sciences, arts, philosophy, history etc. Social science is not a science (I could agree on field of study) because there are too many possibilities involved in human psyche. "“Many researchers fail to consider that their measurements of brains, behavior and self-reported experience are profoundly influenced by their subjects' culture, class and experience, as well as by the situation in which the research is conducted,”" An example of how social science can be dangerous is of how many people take the "Milgram experiment " canon, Eugenics, IQ, Social Darwinism, ... policy making based on social science studies .. It all goes into the same basket to me.
      - dahart 3y ago
        > I define science as anything that is scientifically rigorous That's not a definition, it's a circular statement with no information. Please provide a real and functional definition that can be used to identify whether a subject is scientifically rigorous or not. Your first link confirms that Anthropology is science. Your second link is false information content spam with no sources. People can and do experiment on society, the article we're commenting on is an example, the claim highlighted is obviously false. Your third link is outdated non-news - the AAA put the word science back in their statement the following year. Your fourth link is talking about humanities and not social science. This is another Gish Gallop of non-evidence that fails to support your claim. How many possibilities are involved in the stars or the earth or in chemistry or biology? Why does the number of possibilities have anything to do with whether a subject is science or not? Please explain. Here's a list of research papers from multiple fields, some are scientific and some are not. Can you identify which ones are not science and which field they belong to? If it’s not science, say why. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26131-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26131-z https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.17207 https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.17207 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220570120 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220570120 https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12597 https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12597 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33957-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33957-8 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add5462 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add5462 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02820 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02820 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26560-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26560-w https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2300166120 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2300166120

Look you get on my nerves with your tone. If you want to have a conversation thats fine, but if your message starts with Aww you are not worth my time.

dahart 3y ago

Oh I’m sorry. Honestly. I do want to have a conversation. Is it possible you might have misinterpreted my “tone”? I was just trying to be encouraging and break the downward spiral of ad-hominem snark here, to get back to having a discussion about the issue rather than complaining about style. There is a valid argument to be made, and you’re failing to make it. It’s abundantly clear now that you are either unable or unwilling to respond to any of my argument at all (you have completely ignored every single direct point and question about what science is, what the definition of science is, and what social science is, and so far you’ve refused to even define the terms you’re making claims about - this isn’t helping your case). You did give me 3 opinion rants, but you haven’t provided any particularly relevant or compelling evidence of your claim that social science is not a science. And the fact of the matter is that social science is currently categorized as a branch of science, regardless of your opinion. I’m curious what your expertise is, and I’m curious where you got this opinion and why you keep it in the face of contrary evidence like the dictionary. I would have loved to come to a conclusion that recognizes there’s actually some nuance here, because there is, but I’m happy to call it here if you want since I have evidence that you don’t actually seem to want to discuss the issue you brought up.

xkcd1963 3y ago
If you remain friendly I'm willing to continue our conversation. What if we tried an approach with examples. What field as example is a social science to you?
- dahart 3y ago
  Good. Would you mind reviewing the thread and answering some of the many questions I’ve asked that you haven’t answered? Specifically, for one, please define “science”, so we can get to the question of what is and what is not science. The claim that social science is not science is yours to justify. A list of social sciences is in the Wikipedia article I linked to already. Sociology and Anthropology would be good representative examples.
  - xkcd1963 3y ago
    https://www.thoughtco.com/is-anthropology-a-science-3971060 https://www.thoughtco.com/is-anthropology-a-science-3971060 https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/sociology-is-sociology-a-branch-of-science-answered/6252#:~:text=Sociology%20is%20not%20a%20science%20because%20it%20can't%20make,it%20is%20abstract%20in%20nature https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/sociology-is-so.... http://cognitionandculture.net/blogs/benson-salers-blog/anthropology-is-not-a-science-says-the-aaa/ http://cognitionandculture.net/blogs/benson-salers-blog/anth... https://etiennefd.substack.com/p/the-difference-between-science-and https://etiennefd.substack.com/p/the-difference-between-scie... I define science as anything that is scientifically rigorous. That does not include humanities or social sciences, arts, philosophy, history etc. Social science is not a science (I could agree on field of study) because there are too many possibilities involved in human psyche. "“Many researchers fail to consider that their measurements of brains, behavior and self-reported experience are profoundly influenced by their subjects' culture, class and experience, as well as by the situation in which the research is conducted,”" An example of how social science can be dangerous is of how many people take the "Milgram experiment " canon, Eugenics, IQ, Social Darwinism, ... policy making based on social science studies .. It all goes into the same basket to me.
    - dahart 3y ago
      > I define science as anything that is scientifically rigorous That's not a definition, it's a circular statement with no information. Please provide a real and functional definition that can be used to identify whether a subject is scientifically rigorous or not. Your first link confirms that Anthropology is science. Your second link is false information content spam with no sources. People can and do experiment on society, the article we're commenting on is an example, the claim highlighted is obviously false. Your third link is outdated non-news - the AAA put the word science back in their statement the following year. Your fourth link is talking about humanities and not social science. This is another Gish Gallop of non-evidence that fails to support your claim. How many possibilities are involved in the stars or the earth or in chemistry or biology? Why does the number of possibilities have anything to do with whether a subject is science or not? Please explain. Here's a list of research papers from multiple fields, some are scientific and some are not. Can you identify which ones are not science and which field they belong to? If it’s not science, say why. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26131-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26131-z https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.17207 https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.17207 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220570120 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220570120 https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12597 https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12597 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33957-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33957-8 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add5462 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add5462 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02820 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02820 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26560-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26560-w https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2300166120 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2300166120