3 ms·
> 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 t
by 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.
- dahart 3y agoWhat’s “rigorous enough”? What does “rigorous” actually mean? You haven’t defined that at all in any way that can explain how to distinguish between social science and science. How does “rigor” separate biology from anthropology? I’m just trying to get you to be even a little bit rigorous, but you haven’t been able to put any rigor behind your claim whatsoever, you seem unable to argue your claim, because you simply keep repeating it. You’ve resorted to ad-hominem instead of discussing the issue in most of your comments in this thread, and you’re doing it again. The evidence you’ve provided of a so-called “debate” over whether social science is a science is incredibly weak. Most of it was irrelevant to your specific point because either you’re confused about the difference between humanities and social science or you read the click-bait headline but didn’t catch the conclusion. Most of what you brought so far was single obscure opinion pieces by one person that fail to show any significant disagreement about social science. The existence of someone who says something hyperbolic on the internet is not evidence of a lack of consensus. Meanwhile, the single Wikipedia link stating without hesitation that social science is considered a science represents thousands of people who agree that social science is a science. Wikipedia is generally pretty good about acknowledging a lack of consensus. So if you think you’re right that there’s enough lack of consensus, then you should edit the Wikipedia page and get it to permanently state either a lack of consensus or permanently state that social science isn’t science. Yes totally I think you should scour Puja Mondal’s “article” to pick out the sentences that are true among the many sentences that are untrue. Maybe doing that exercise would help you see how hopelessly terrible that article is. I’m stunned you’re doubling down on this particular point. What is the value of some true sentences in an opinion article that has many false statements, and is written by someone with no expertise? BTW I didn’t define those papers as social science, the science journals nature, science and PNAS did. (For example https://www.nature.com/collections/ccjddcabab https://www.nature.com/collections/ccjddcabab) Agriculture, being a human endeavor, is considered part social science, and any given paper can lean heavily into the social science. The paper you called CS is really computational social science, and obviously so since it’s trying to recognize human emotion. All the papers listed are multidisciplinary and all involve social science. You are further demonstrating that you don’t know what social science is. So what’s your expertise? Why is your opinion on social science even relevant?