3 ms·

It's still sadly fashionable in engineering circles to bash social science without reason. Please list objections objectively * . '* Was Kant a social scienti

It's still sadly fashionable in engineering circles to bash social science without reason. Please list objections objectively * . '* Was Kant a social scientist? Perhaps. Odd trivia: his work reversed the notion of subjectivism and objectivism. But what's in a word?

goalieca 3y ago
[flagged]
- novemp 3y ago
  [flagged]
- throwaway167 3y ago
  Critical theory? I feel an analysis of power structures - what they are, how they come about - is a pretty useful arrow to the bow of the study of a society (as in, any collection of people, not exclusive to a nation, etc). But I draw an analogy to the 1980s when 'trickle down' policies were called "the economic argument" - indeed an economic argument but hardly closed-book economic proof and there's plenty of opposing economic argument. It was a political agenda painted under an economic slogan to fool many (and even fool many into promoting). Likewise Critical Theory: a useful tool but only one of many and to paint it as the analysis a political agenda (again，fooling many into not only believing but promoting). Modern (can't say Neo, some terms get camped aggressively) takes on critical theory can be a bit removed from Marx, or can be close, but to knee jerk against it completely just coz one doesn't like some of the users feels like denial for the sake of it, and in the end means missing out just like those that stick to one theory to rule them all miss out on the othrs.
  - orangepurple 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 3y ago
      You can't do this here. Since we've warned you multiple times already, I've banned the account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
rayiner 3y ago
Good reasons: 1) “Social science” isn’t science. 2) “Social science” doesn’t enable you to build bridges, computers, weapons, power plants, or anything useful. The situation at Harvard is strong evidence of the above. Do you think the other folks in President Gay’s department are much more rigorous about their work? But it doesn’t matter. Nobody relies on that research. Gay’s predecessors (Faust, Bacow), may not have plagiarized their papers and books, but nobody read those either. If folks don’t have an axe to grind about President Gay over her comments about Israel, nobody would have even paid attention to this story. But people noticed when, e.g., Boeing engineers were lax on the 737 MAX!
- NikolaNovak 3y ago
  I may somewhat agree with your point but method of getting there makes me doubt yourself and myself :-) 1. "Social science isn't science" is a claim, but there's no proof or detail or evidence or logic put forward to back thay claim. 2. Social science doesn't build computers or bridges,sure. But that's not definition of science (maybe engineering?). If for example social science could reliably predict social group dynamics and behaviours that would make it a science. Or if it could help a group of construction workers reliably work better together to build that bridge that also counts. 3. All sciences sadly have at times both real whopsie and repeatability crisis. If we want to make a (fairly worn out) claim that social science is lacking, we really need to out forward a considered claim.
- skissane 3y ago
  > 1) “Social science” isn’t science. Have you ever read anything by Eric Kaufmann? He's a political scientist (like Claudine Gay), but one whose conclusions I think you'd find have a lot in common with your own thinking (unlike Claudine Gay).
  - rayiner 3y ago
    I wouldn't call Eric Kauffman a "scientist," and I don't think Kauffman would call himself one either. His bio page says: > I am a Professor of Politics from Vancouver, British Columbia, I was born in Hong Kong and spent eight early years of my life in Tokyo. In winter, my favourite pastimes are (ice) hockey and skiing. In summer, cooling off in the ocean or by the lake. I am principally interested in cultural politics: ethnicity, national identity, left-wing ideology and religion. Lots of people study things, without properly being called scientists. Historians, archeologists, etc.

goalieca 3y ago

[flagged]

novemp 3y ago
[flagged]
throwaway167 3y ago
Critical theory? I feel an analysis of power structures - what they are, how they come about - is a pretty useful arrow to the bow of the study of a society (as in, any collection of people, not exclusive to a nation, etc). But I draw an analogy to the 1980s when 'trickle down' policies were called "the economic argument" - indeed an economic argument but hardly closed-book economic proof and there's plenty of opposing economic argument. It was a political agenda painted under an economic slogan to fool many (and even fool many into promoting). Likewise Critical Theory: a useful tool but only one of many and to paint it as the analysis a political agenda (again，fooling many into not only believing but promoting). Modern (can't say Neo, some terms get camped aggressively) takes on critical theory can be a bit removed from Marx, or can be close, but to knee jerk against it completely just coz one doesn't like some of the users feels like denial for the sake of it, and in the end means missing out just like those that stick to one theory to rule them all miss out on the othrs.
- orangepurple 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 3y ago
    You can't do this here. Since we've warned you multiple times already, I've banned the account. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

rayiner 3y ago

Good reasons: 1) “Social science” isn’t science. 2) “Social science” doesn’t enable you to build bridges, computers, weapons, power plants, or anything useful. The situation at Harvard is strong evidence of the above. Do you think the other folks in President Gay’s department are much more rigorous about their work? But it doesn’t matter. Nobody relies on that research. Gay’s predecessors (Faust, Bacow), may not have plagiarized their papers and books, but nobody read those either. If folks don’t have an axe to grind about President Gay over her comments about Israel, nobody would have even paid attention to this story. But people noticed when, e.g., Boeing engineers were lax on the 737 MAX!

NikolaNovak 3y ago
I may somewhat agree with your point but method of getting there makes me doubt yourself and myself :-) 1. "Social science isn't science" is a claim, but there's no proof or detail or evidence or logic put forward to back thay claim. 2. Social science doesn't build computers or bridges,sure. But that's not definition of science (maybe engineering?). If for example social science could reliably predict social group dynamics and behaviours that would make it a science. Or if it could help a group of construction workers reliably work better together to build that bridge that also counts. 3. All sciences sadly have at times both real whopsie and repeatability crisis. If we want to make a (fairly worn out) claim that social science is lacking, we really need to out forward a considered claim.
skissane 3y ago
> 1) “Social science” isn’t science. Have you ever read anything by Eric Kaufmann? He's a political scientist (like Claudine Gay), but one whose conclusions I think you'd find have a lot in common with your own thinking (unlike Claudine Gay).
- rayiner 3y ago
  I wouldn't call Eric Kauffman a "scientist," and I don't think Kauffman would call himself one either. His bio page says: > I am a Professor of Politics from Vancouver, British Columbia, I was born in Hong Kong and spent eight early years of my life in Tokyo. In winter, my favourite pastimes are (ice) hockey and skiing. In summer, cooling off in the ocean or by the lake. I am principally interested in cultural politics: ethnicity, national identity, left-wing ideology and religion. Lots of people study things, without properly being called scientists. Historians, archeologists, etc.