I think you just don’t understand what I’m saying. All that may be true but then you would need to control for ALL those variables for good science which you just cannot do in the social sciences.
They’re important, just not really good science. They’re useful, but not in the way physics is. There aren’t competing theories of the most basic levels of understanding in the hard sciences. There are throughout the entirety of the fields of the social sciences.
I mean you’re not wrong with how you’re thinking about hard STEM sciences but it’s needlessly gatekeeping and full on incorrect to say others aren’t good science. Most of them are very necessary and very real science usually far more important to the world than anyone to the right of the graph in your end of the Purity kxcd lol.
FWIW there’s not competing sciences for even most of the STEM ones either. If you think there is… well you might just be studying string theory still lmfao.
Gotta feel sorry for made up quirks of mathematics that always fall apart when applied in the real world though lol. They make for fun what ifs but damn if they aren’t fleecing their way to a paycheck for hypersensationalized headlines for super fringe never proveable theorems.
Just realized clean drinking water, electricity, transport infrastructure, etc. isn’t important. The things you think are important to the world are only important because most people in first world countries have never had to face true hardship in their lives as a result of technological advancement.
I’m not talking about string theory. Scientists disagree about things at a high level all the time. It’s how the fields move forward. They don’t disagree on the fundamentals though, which social sciences have a tendency to.
I’m not here to say the social sciences are useless. In fact I’ve stated several times that I think people need to be able to understand them and use them. I’m arguing something different entirely and I don’t know why you keep strawmanning me. It’s not about some ideological purity but a basic difference in the ability to learn things because of our inability to control the relevant variables.
It’s not about some ideological purity but a basic difference in the ability to learn things because of our inability to control the relevant variables.
We are just going to have to disagree then. Said variables are heavily controlled, well known about, and usually spoken about in every paper about issues it might have.
I’m pretty confident we’re at an impasse now so not much more to say since the long thread has brought in too many side musings too.
I think you just don’t understand what I’m saying. All that may be true but then you would need to control for ALL those variables for good science which you just cannot do in the social sciences.
They’re important, just not really good science. They’re useful, but not in the way physics is. There aren’t competing theories of the most basic levels of understanding in the hard sciences. There are throughout the entirety of the fields of the social sciences.
I mean you’re not wrong with how you’re thinking about hard STEM sciences but it’s needlessly gatekeeping and full on incorrect to say others aren’t good science. Most of them are very necessary and very real science usually far more important to the world than anyone to the right of the graph in your end of the Purity kxcd lol.
FWIW there’s not competing sciences for even most of the STEM ones either. If you think there is… well you might just be studying string theory still lmfao.
Gotta feel sorry for made up quirks of mathematics that always fall apart when applied in the real world though lol. They make for fun what ifs but damn if they aren’t fleecing their way to a paycheck for hypersensationalized headlines for super fringe never proveable theorems.
Just realized clean drinking water, electricity, transport infrastructure, etc. isn’t important. The things you think are important to the world are only important because most people in first world countries have never had to face true hardship in their lives as a result of technological advancement.
I’m not talking about string theory. Scientists disagree about things at a high level all the time. It’s how the fields move forward. They don’t disagree on the fundamentals though, which social sciences have a tendency to.
I’m not here to say the social sciences are useless. In fact I’ve stated several times that I think people need to be able to understand them and use them. I’m arguing something different entirely and I don’t know why you keep strawmanning me. It’s not about some ideological purity but a basic difference in the ability to learn things because of our inability to control the relevant variables.
We are just going to have to disagree then. Said variables are heavily controlled, well known about, and usually spoken about in every paper about issues it might have.
I’m pretty confident we’re at an impasse now so not much more to say since the long thread has brought in too many side musings too.
Take care.