2 ms·

> 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 an

by 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 Your third link is outdated non-news - the AAA put the word science back in their statement the following year.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

xkcd1963 3y ago
> That's not a definition, it's a circular statement with no information. Common man do you want me to copy-paste the definition of science from wikipedia here? You can look it up yourself. My obvious statement is that the problem I see is that some stuff that people want to label as science is not science because it is not rigorous enough. > https://www.thoughtco.com/is-anthropology-a-science-3971060 https://www.thoughtco.com/is-anthropology-a-science-3971060 You can read in the article that people do not agree on whether anthropology is science or not. > 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... Well here we run into a problem, anything that you don't want to hear is either spam or false information. > http://cognitionandculture.net/blogs/benson-salers-blog/anthropology-is-not-a-science-says-the-aaa/ http://cognitionandculture.net/blogs/benson-salers-blog/anth... Yes but that still shows that people argue about this stuff. This topic is not closed. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26131-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26131-z => Neuroscience => Science https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.17207 https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.17207 => Mathematics => Science https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220570120 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220570120 => Agricultural Science => Science https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12597 https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12597 => Mathematics => Science https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33957-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33957-8 => Physics => Science https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add5462 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add5462 => Hydrology => Science https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02820 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02820 => Computer Science => Science https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26560-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26560-w => nope https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2300166120 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2300166120 => nope
- dahart 3y ago
  > Common man do you want me to copy-paste the definition of science from wikipedia here? You can look it up yourself. Sure. I already did that, and you disagreed with it. WP’s definition supports social science being categorized as science. I’m asking you for the definition that supports your claim, because WP’s does not. > You can read in the article that people do not agree on whether anthropology is science or not. You can read in it that some do. The conclusion says that at least some of it is good robust science, which disproves your claim. > Well here we run into a problem, anything that you don't want to hear is either spam or false information. Not true at all. Did you even bother to read the article and look at whether it’s authoritative? Yourarticlelibrary.com is a content spam site: the entire thing. Did you even read the article? It’s full of misspellings and false and stupid sentences. The problem is you aren’t even trying to evaluate the quality of the links you’re pasting, after googling a biased question for anything to back up your incorrect points. I’d be absolutely embarrassed to defend this article, and you should too, it’s trash. Your response is resorting again to ad-hominem, you simply don’t seem to be capable of sticking to arguing that the content is true or think critically about it. I know that people argue about this topic, I’ve in fact mentioned that multiple times. Too bad that doesn’t prove anything. I’m glad you agree that some of those are science, because all of them except the math paper are categorized as social science. Every Single One. The math paper is not science, it’s math. You’re proving to me you don’t know what you’re talking about, and not curious to learn.
  - xkcd1963 3y ago
    > Sure. I already did that, and you disagreed with it. WP’s definition supports social science being categorized as science. I’m asking you for the definition that supports your claim, because WP’s does not. Okay so social sciences I do not consider science because they are not rigorous enough (I did write this in the past three messages...). The rest of the WP 1st paragraph I agree with. > You can read in it that some do. The conclusion says that at least some of it is good robust science, which disproves your claim. I did not send you the link to prove my claim. But you can derivate from this that there is no consensus on this topic. You'll probably argue that it is a closed topic because wikipedia says so, but I do not agree. > Not true at all. Did you even bother to read the article and look at whether it’s authoritative? Yourarticlelibrary.com is a content spam site: the entire thing. Did you even read the article? It’s full of misspellings and false and stupid sentences. The problem is you aren’t even trying to evaluate the quality of the links you’re pasting, after googling a biased question for anything to back up your incorrect points. I’d be absolutely embarrassed to defend this article, and you should too, it’s trash. Your response is resorting again to ad-hominem, you simply don’t seem to be capable of sticking to arguing that the content is true or think critically about it. If you want I can mark for you the texts that I consider truthful. > I know that people argue about this topic, I’ve in fact mentioned that multiple times. Too bad that doesn’t prove anything. What are you trying to prove? Who decides that social science is a science? > I’m glad you agree that some of those are science, because all of them except the math paper are categorized as social science. Every Single One. The math paper is not science, it’s math. Neuroscience < Biology < Natural Science Agricultural Science < Multidisciplinary < Biology Physics < Natural Science Hydrology < Multidisciplinary but mostly Natural Science Computer Science < Formal Sciences Sorry but you seem to be quite wrong on this one. The only credit I could give you is on multidisciplinary sciences, but there again I would exclude social sciences as valid parts of the respective science. Mathematics is often considered a science. > You’re proving to me you don’t know what you’re talking about, and not curious to learn. Do you want to hear my opinion of what I think about you? I think you are proclaiming a false sense of intellectualism by being pendant where it is absolutely unnecessary. I've already stated my point of view multiple times and it is simple enough that you should understand me. You do understand my point of view but continue to inquire information from me as if to show me a lesson. I have the feeling we continue in circles so unless there is something else to tell I'd like to close the topic.

by dahart 3y ago

xkcd1963 3y ago

> That's not a definition, it's a circular statement with no information. Common man do you want me to copy-paste the definition of science from wikipedia here? You can look it up yourself. My obvious statement is that the problem I see is that some stuff that people want to label as science is not science because it is not rigorous enough. > https://www.thoughtco.com/is-anthropology-a-science-3971060 https://www.thoughtco.com/is-anthropology-a-science-3971060 You can read in the article that people do not agree on whether anthropology is science or not. > 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... Well here we run into a problem, anything that you don't want to hear is either spam or false information. > http://cognitionandculture.net/blogs/benson-salers-blog/anthropology-is-not-a-science-says-the-aaa/ http://cognitionandculture.net/blogs/benson-salers-blog/anth... Yes but that still shows that people argue about this stuff. This topic is not closed. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26131-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26131-z => Neuroscience => Science https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.17207 https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.17207 => Mathematics => Science https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220570120 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2220570120 => Agricultural Science => Science https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12597 https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.12597 => Mathematics => Science https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33957-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33957-8 => Physics => Science https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add5462 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add5462 => Hydrology => Science https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02820 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.02820 => Computer Science => Science https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26560-w https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26560-w => nope https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2300166120 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2300166120 => nope

dahart 3y ago
> Common man do you want me to copy-paste the definition of science from wikipedia here? You can look it up yourself. Sure. I already did that, and you disagreed with it. WP’s definition supports social science being categorized as science. I’m asking you for the definition that supports your claim, because WP’s does not. > You can read in the article that people do not agree on whether anthropology is science or not. You can read in it that some do. The conclusion says that at least some of it is good robust science, which disproves your claim. > Well here we run into a problem, anything that you don't want to hear is either spam or false information. Not true at all. Did you even bother to read the article and look at whether it’s authoritative? Yourarticlelibrary.com is a content spam site: the entire thing. Did you even read the article? It’s full of misspellings and false and stupid sentences. The problem is you aren’t even trying to evaluate the quality of the links you’re pasting, after googling a biased question for anything to back up your incorrect points. I’d be absolutely embarrassed to defend this article, and you should too, it’s trash. Your response is resorting again to ad-hominem, you simply don’t seem to be capable of sticking to arguing that the content is true or think critically about it. I know that people argue about this topic, I’ve in fact mentioned that multiple times. Too bad that doesn’t prove anything. I’m glad you agree that some of those are science, because all of them except the math paper are categorized as social science. Every Single One. The math paper is not science, it’s math. You’re proving to me you don’t know what you’re talking about, and not curious to learn.
- xkcd1963 3y ago
  > Sure. I already did that, and you disagreed with it. WP’s definition supports social science being categorized as science. I’m asking you for the definition that supports your claim, because WP’s does not. Okay so social sciences I do not consider science because they are not rigorous enough (I did write this in the past three messages...). The rest of the WP 1st paragraph I agree with. > You can read in it that some do. The conclusion says that at least some of it is good robust science, which disproves your claim. I did not send you the link to prove my claim. But you can derivate from this that there is no consensus on this topic. You'll probably argue that it is a closed topic because wikipedia says so, but I do not agree. > Not true at all. Did you even bother to read the article and look at whether it’s authoritative? Yourarticlelibrary.com is a content spam site: the entire thing. Did you even read the article? It’s full of misspellings and false and stupid sentences. The problem is you aren’t even trying to evaluate the quality of the links you’re pasting, after googling a biased question for anything to back up your incorrect points. I’d be absolutely embarrassed to defend this article, and you should too, it’s trash. Your response is resorting again to ad-hominem, you simply don’t seem to be capable of sticking to arguing that the content is true or think critically about it. If you want I can mark for you the texts that I consider truthful. > I know that people argue about this topic, I’ve in fact mentioned that multiple times. Too bad that doesn’t prove anything. What are you trying to prove? Who decides that social science is a science? > I’m glad you agree that some of those are science, because all of them except the math paper are categorized as social science. Every Single One. The math paper is not science, it’s math. Neuroscience < Biology < Natural Science Agricultural Science < Multidisciplinary < Biology Physics < Natural Science Hydrology < Multidisciplinary but mostly Natural Science Computer Science < Formal Sciences Sorry but you seem to be quite wrong on this one. The only credit I could give you is on multidisciplinary sciences, but there again I would exclude social sciences as valid parts of the respective science. Mathematics is often considered a science. > You’re proving to me you don’t know what you’re talking about, and not curious to learn. Do you want to hear my opinion of what I think about you? I think you are proclaiming a false sense of intellectualism by being pendant where it is absolutely unnecessary. I've already stated my point of view multiple times and it is simple enough that you should understand me. You do understand my point of view but continue to inquire information from me as if to show me a lesson. I have the feeling we continue in circles so unless there is something else to tell I'd like to close the topic.