4 ms·
From this view, science (singular) is only achieved or perfected once reality can be (nearly) mapped 1:1, which, as we know, is not a realistic goal ("all model
by dleeftink 3y ago
From this view, science (singular) is only achieved or perfected once reality can be (nearly) mapped 1:1, which, as we know, is not a realistic goal ("all models are wrong, some are useful"). Beyond replication, wissenschaften (plural) additionally encompasses descriptive methods, which is less about predicting social dynamics and more about summarising sociality to a certain level of achievable granularity.
Hence why I brought up the difference and why I think language differences are important--the ways in which scientists, academics and researchers understand practices of knowing and knowledge building informs their scientific process and the models of reality they hold as true. Besides, models frequently 'drift' and are rarely cut and dry[0], just as blanketing all social science models as irreplicable is simply not true (see Lotka's Law or the Barabási–Albert model; statisticians contributing greatly to social science) [1][2].
More problematically, and not necessarily directed to your views alone, is the continued 'dunking' on 'non-scientific' disciplines. Why are humanist methods held to indefinite scrutiny, while similar criticism could as easily be directed elsewhere? For instance, dismissing physics as 'not a science' because models fail to predict quantum phenomena, mathematics as 'not a science' because there are limits to provability, machine learning as 'not a science' because source corpora are subjectively chosen, and so on (just examples, not my critiques of them).
It is precisely why I regard computational social science as important, seeking to bridge the seeming incompatibilities between exact and inexact phenomena. Even after more than a century of social science, we are only at the cusp of understanding the foundational patterns that make up social life, with contemporary computational methods and data collection capabilities offering new levels of detail into phenomena that were previously difficult to investigate.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_drift https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept_drift
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%27s_law
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabási–Albert_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabási–Albert_model
- RF_Savage 3y agoAnd some how people seem to have a strong urge to dunk on social sciences but not economics, even if the fields are rather similar. And economic models often are even harder to fit into real world data.
- chaostheory 3y agoEconomics is a social study despite all the math
- chaostheory 3y agoScience isn’t perfect, but they have repeatable theoretical models. That’s literally what separates them from the social studies. > It is precisely why I regard computational social science as important, seeking to bridge the seeming incompatibilities between exact and inexact phenomena. Yes, this is what I meant with a near perfect simulation. We agree here > Even after more than a century of social science, we are only at the cusp of understanding the foundational patterns that make up social life This is what’s meant for social studies lacking repeatable theoretical models