3 ms·
I am about to receive Ph D in the social sciences, an MA in anthro, tons of discussions with sociology students. I am sure that you wouldn't be satisfied, but
by forkandwait 13y ago
I am about to receive Ph D in the social sciences, an MA in anthro, tons of discussions with sociology students. I am sure that you wouldn't be satisfied, but I am not in the "very little knowledge" category.
And I am very pro-science, which is why I am anti social science. THe latter would be more intellectually honest to say "really, we would be lucky if we were in the same place as the alchemists were in the 12th century". Instead they fill journals with ideological crap that (in) directly supports their power struggles.
> All of these fields are intensely focused on empirical evidence, statistical testing, and sturdy experimental design.
Yeah whatever. The use of regression as the end-all be-all scientific magic that justifies a theory is the basic problem. What most sociologists don't understand is the difference, in real science (Physics, say), between a linear and a non-linear system. Most systems of any consequence, including orbiting planets, are nonlinear; if we could actually model human interaction, it would be nonlinear too. So a regression method might be able to describe a very local effect, but it has as much validity as a complete (global) model as a straight line does in describing the elliptical movement of the planets -- ie, none.
Furthermore, we have no real way yet to test social theories, which have too many moving parts to get a clear signal in an experiment, much less get consistent between repeating experiments. Without repeatable experiments, we don't have science. Post-hoc regression is not the same as an experiment. No offense, but most of the "science" in these fields is, in my estimation, nothing more than a Roman soothsayer making sure to get the incantations and the colors of his robes just right. We just have no fucking clue why stuff happens, for the most part, just like them.
- rmk2 13y agoWhy do we need to bother with repeatable experiments for social sciences? You've read Heidegger, it seems ("who is fucking brilliant if you can get through his ridiculous prose"). We are already geworfen into this world, a world that consists of Mitsein. This is your own Dasein, which is a fact, because it is the apriori of your Sein and first enables you to ask any of the questions you ask. Heidegger sees ontology as more fundamental, more basic than any of the sciences, because they only describe the Wie of Dasein, not Sein itself. We don't "need to have a fucking clue" why things happen, because we are already involved in them either way. If you indeed subscribe to Heidegger, then none of these questions are primary questions, they are questions that you can only concern yourself with after you have understood the conditions and structures of your own Sein. There is a good reason Sein und Zeit is a fragment, an aborted solution for the problem of ontology. Heidegger himself notices that his line of enquiry does not solve the overall problem of ontology, despite his optimistic start. Perhaps therein lies part of the reason why ontology has been seen rather sceptically by many of the people who followed him?
- derleth 13y ago> Why do we need to bother with repeatable experiments for social sciences? So we aren't lead into error by well-known cognitive biases and/or outright fraud, both of which are known to exist as they can be demonstrated through repeatable experiments.
- dvanduzer 13y agoWould you say that Anthropology and Sociology, as fields, would be better considered part of the Humanities? Or are you saying something else?