4 ms·

You honestly believe that the social sciences have the same rigor as physics?

by willcipriano 3y ago

sitkack 3y ago
corruption and rigor are different things.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  Can't really be corrupt if you have enough rigor.
  - dahart 3y ago
    Oh, lots of people have been rigorous about their corruption. Maybe they only got caught because they’re not rigorous enough. :P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_...
    - willcipriano 3y ago
      Physics: "Elements of what became physics were drawn primarily from the fields of astronomy, optics, and mechanics, which were methodologically united through the study of geometry. These mathematical disciplines began in antiquity with the Babylonians and with Hellenistic writers such as Archimedes and Ptolemy." Established: 200 BC[0] Social Sciences: "The history of the social sciences began in the Age of Enlightenment after 1650" Established: 1650 AD[1] Physics: 2224 year history Social Sciences: 374 year history Physics: 3 incidents of misconduct on Wikipedia article (and that includes engineering as well). Social Sciences: 11 incidents of misconduct on Wikipedia article. Physics: One incident per 741 years. Social Sciences: One incident per 34 years. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
xkcd-sucks 3y ago
Yes, for whatever that's worth. One example: I did a pure-chemistry undergrad degree and a psychology-adjacent graduate degree. The "hard science" degree involved basically zero applied statistics of any kind, any statistics concepts that came up were emergent from lower level stuff even in e.g. stat mech courses, and I wasn't even aware that "Design of Experiments" was a thing. Whereas the "soft science" curricula was heavily focused on statistical rigor, DoE, layers upon layers of internal controls, and so forth; basically because there was no practical way to see an unambiguous effect. It certainly seemed "rigorous". However the soft science stuff just has less predictive power despite the rigor. In broad sense it relates to human perception, capabilities of technology, model systems, semiotics/epistemology (maybe wrong word), prediction/confirmation, especially faith. For example, at a macro scale on Earth, it is very easy to accurately predict at human scale how things work. Micro scale physical objects require a bit more bootstrapping. You can't see most molecules or atoms, so you have to come up with a way of inferring measurements through other processes which themselves have to be trustworthy. Etc. At some point of course, one has to select some model as an axiom or matter of faith to make any progress. You can't model a dropping brick if you can't trust your timer or measuring tape, etc. So you stand on giants' shoulders and make a predictive model as an extension of the axiomatic one. This starts getting really squishy when you're dealing with entire concepts that have no agreed upon definition whether quantitative or qualitative and try to make them into something onto which statistical rigor can be applied!!!!! So with soft-science literature it is always extremely important to mentally substitute the details of a model's implementation, for the shorthand expression used to describe it which may overlap with a commonly used word. For example, "We found that this drug candidate significantly reduced depression in mice" -> "We found that this drug candidate significantly increased the amount of time mice swim around before giving up when you chuck them into a tank of water, etc. because the rigorous conclusion might not actually be practically meaningful if the axioms are practically unpredictive. And even worse, going back to the "no agreed definition" thing, the definitions of psychological concepts are only defined in terms of these very vague experiments! It's like bootstrapping physics if you're a disembodied nothing in a simulation. idk there's much more to say on this but I'm procrastinating at work so

You honestly believe that the social sciences have the same rigor as physics?

sitkack 3y ago

corruption and rigor are different things.

willcipriano 3y ago
Can't really be corrupt if you have enough rigor.
- dahart 3y ago
  Oh, lots of people have been rigorous about their corruption. Maybe they only got caught because they’re not rigorous enough. :P https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_...
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    Physics: "Elements of what became physics were drawn primarily from the fields of astronomy, optics, and mechanics, which were methodologically united through the study of geometry. These mathematical disciplines began in antiquity with the Babylonians and with Hellenistic writers such as Archimedes and Ptolemy." Established: 200 BC[0] Social Sciences: "The history of the social sciences began in the Age of Enlightenment after 1650" Established: 1650 AD[1] Physics: 2224 year history Social Sciences: 374 year history Physics: 3 incidents of misconduct on Wikipedia article (and that includes engineering as well). Social Sciences: 11 incidents of misconduct on Wikipedia article. Physics: One incident per 741 years. Social Sciences: One incident per 34 years. [0]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_physics [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_science
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

xkcd-sucks 3y ago

Yes, for whatever that's worth. One example: I did a pure-chemistry undergrad degree and a psychology-adjacent graduate degree. The "hard science" degree involved basically zero applied statistics of any kind, any statistics concepts that came up were emergent from lower level stuff even in e.g. stat mech courses, and I wasn't even aware that "Design of Experiments" was a thing. Whereas the "soft science" curricula was heavily focused on statistical rigor, DoE, layers upon layers of internal controls, and so forth; basically because there was no practical way to see an unambiguous effect. It certainly seemed "rigorous". However the soft science stuff just has less predictive power despite the rigor. In broad sense it relates to human perception, capabilities of technology, model systems, semiotics/epistemology (maybe wrong word), prediction/confirmation, especially faith. For example, at a macro scale on Earth, it is very easy to accurately predict at human scale how things work. Micro scale physical objects require a bit more bootstrapping. You can't see most molecules or atoms, so you have to come up with a way of inferring measurements through other processes which themselves have to be trustworthy. Etc. At some point of course, one has to select some model as an axiom or matter of faith to make any progress. You can't model a dropping brick if you can't trust your timer or measuring tape, etc. So you stand on giants' shoulders and make a predictive model as an extension of the axiomatic one. This starts getting really squishy when you're dealing with entire concepts that have no agreed upon definition whether quantitative or qualitative and try to make them into something onto which statistical rigor can be applied!!!!! So with soft-science literature it is always extremely important to mentally substitute the details of a model's implementation, for the shorthand expression used to describe it which may overlap with a commonly used word. For example, "We found that this drug candidate significantly reduced depression in mice" -> "We found that this drug candidate significantly increased the amount of time mice swim around before giving up when you chuck them into a tank of water, etc. because the rigorous conclusion might not actually be practically meaningful if the axioms are practically unpredictive. And even worse, going back to the "no agreed definition" thing, the definitions of psychological concepts are only defined in terms of these very vague experiments! It's like bootstrapping physics if you're a disembodied nothing in a simulation. idk there's much more to say on this but I'm procrastinating at work so