3 ms·

> You can read over a hundred years of extensive, exhaustive criticism of most social "sciences" for exactly that reason There's nothing essentially non-scient

> You can read over a hundred years of extensive, exhaustive criticism of most social "sciences" for exactly that reason There's nothing essentially non-scientific about the fields; it's just harder to control variables. The entire "hard science" vs "soft science" beef is a little silly when "hard science" isn't equipped to reason about most human concepts. Try not to chuck the baby out with the bathwater. I'd prefer to stop differentiating between the two ends of the spectrum as if they're inherently different. I also find that people who poo-poo "soft sciences" still have strong beliefs about humans, society, etc, they just don't even bother trying to ground them in evidence.

IshKebab 2y ago
The non-scientific aspect is that conclusions are drawn even when the variables haven't been controlled (because as you say most of the time it's basically impossible). I imagine it must be really frustrating for people actually trying to learn facts when the famous results are dominated by nonsense like this, power poses, hungry judges, etc. It's not just in research either. E.g. in the UK they did a regression of missed school vs exam results, noticed that they were correlated and now it's a criminal offence to take your children out of school for holidays, even for a single day.
- Jensson 2y ago
  > The non-scientific aspect is that conclusions are drawn even when the variables haven't been controlled Yeah, it is so strange when people say we should listen to the scientists, we shouldn't since scientists make all these much stronger claims than the data supports. Instead we should listen to the data, see what it says, rather than the scientists who did the studies. And it is really important to note that the data doesn't necessarily say what the study author says it does. Edit: Above is for social sciences, since they lack robust results. In the hard sciences were we have a lot more robust results it makes more sense to listen to those who know those results, that doesn't have to be scientists though could be experts like engineers etc.
- darby_nine 2y ago
  There's no rubrik for grading scientific correctness. Just because controlling variables is more difficult doesn't mean we should abandon the scientific method and just talk out of our asses.

IshKebab 2y ago

The non-scientific aspect is that conclusions are drawn even when the variables haven't been controlled (because as you say most of the time it's basically impossible). I imagine it must be really frustrating for people actually trying to learn facts when the famous results are dominated by nonsense like this, power poses, hungry judges, etc. It's not just in research either. E.g. in the UK they did a regression of missed school vs exam results, noticed that they were correlated and now it's a criminal offence to take your children out of school for holidays, even for a single day.

Jensson 2y ago
> The non-scientific aspect is that conclusions are drawn even when the variables haven't been controlled Yeah, it is so strange when people say we should listen to the scientists, we shouldn't since scientists make all these much stronger claims than the data supports. Instead we should listen to the data, see what it says, rather than the scientists who did the studies. And it is really important to note that the data doesn't necessarily say what the study author says it does. Edit: Above is for social sciences, since they lack robust results. In the hard sciences were we have a lot more robust results it makes more sense to listen to those who know those results, that doesn't have to be scientists though could be experts like engineers etc.
darby_nine 2y ago
There's no rubrik for grading scientific correctness. Just because controlling variables is more difficult doesn't mean we should abandon the scientific method and just talk out of our asses.