What’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 scie

What’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?