How to do Social Science 1.

scientific, itself. isn't so scientific these days...

 

The crit theory (Marxist) cultural relativists are still out in full force. In light of the total victory of the Constitutional Republic, the individual freedoms it espouses, over collectivism, it's all they have left. All the "failures of capitalism," "wealth inequality," "white oppressor," "colonialism did that" lie narratives and canards they run in cooperation with the rest of the Complex are just different versions of multiculturalism... or rather "white man bad" silliness.

Landes' book is not capable of summary, but responds directly and negatively to the "environmental determinism" of frauds like Jared Diamond in "Guns, Germs and Steel." Landes gives environmental factors their just due in the first 20-30 pages of the book because they DO matter, and then posits an expansive exploration of cultural factors all over the world and throughout history that have advanced and retarded the development of modern civilization over thousands of years. It is not "Western Centric" as the multicultis claim, but simply attempts to explain the -fact- that the West somehow outstripped much older cultures in a few hundred years by an immense, world-historical degree. So it's the very antithesis of any relativism about culture.

Sowell explores how specific historical conquests or series of them produced strong or weak cultures over time, and is a tacit response to "evil white man oppressive colonialist" Marxist tripe, so also decidedly not "relativist." He focuses on British, African, Eastern Europe and Indigenous American cultures.

These are long books, read them or look up a summary somewhere if interested. I reread the Landes book every couple of years.

 

nope.. no contradiction, you must have misread or misunderstood. I said culture is beautiful... not multi-culturism, you understand the difference....right?

Liberal policies such as Multi-culturism and open borders dilute cultures and in some cases completely change/destroy them. Conservative policies preserve cultures, uphold, appreciate and nurture them.

As for being progressive.

Liberals think they are progressives, that they are making changes for the greater good of the majority. However we've experienced liberalism for the last 30 years, and inequality have skyrocketed. It is clear that liberals think their policies are for the greater good, but in truth all they are doing is making a small percentage of people extremely wealthy, while the rest suffer. Liberals are effectively socialists and in many cases even communists, - make everyone the same with a small number of people extremely wealthy. That is not progressive.

 

correction... it is not progress, yet it is progressivism... much like liberal doesn't equate to liberty nor democrat equate to democracy...

it's all a play of words in an effort to bamboozle the unwitting, the uninterested, the simpletons of societies...

 

You confuse a category like social sciences with pseudo-science? That's nonsense.

Social sciences are obviously not exact sciences. But anything that uses the Scientific Method is a Science. A pseudo-science is a set of claims that try to look "scientific", but don't use the Scientific Method. Even if you were to narrowly define "Science" as only the exact sciences (which in a broad sense would be only Physics and Chemistry)... there is no way you can confuse other scientific endeavors as "pseudo-science"

 

Social science is often referred to as a pseudoscience and/or a soft science. This isn't something that I have concocted on my own. The reason for this designation is precisely what you have identified which is that it is not an exact science. The term "not exact" and "scientific" are oxymoronic to one another. Social sciences have inexact results, and then when a social scientist specifically says they are producing scientific results (as with the OP), they are presenting their unscientific results as science. One can apply the "scientific method" to literally anything (ie. astrology). That alone doesnt make it science. That doesnt make any of its claims "scientific".

 

I understand the difference between those. But that's not what you said. Your statement about how great it was to travel "and experience one different to your own it is a privilege" would make sense only if you meant literally "one culture". That would mean you want your culture, and one other culture. In any case, even in that narrow sense, two cultures are "multiculturalism", which in a strict sense, simply means "more than one"

"Dilute"? That's not how cultures work. It is not how either genetics or memetics work. The concept that mixing cultures would ultimately create one culture is nonsense. When cultures mix more cultures emerge. Not less.

Your statement is wrong at all levels. This concept that people who are poor or have not received an education should stay the same because they're great for "sightseeing" by tourists... or something like that... is outright immoral.

Experienced "liberalism"? I still don't know what you mean by "liberalism", but in the last 30 years we have had four Republicans and two Democrats in the Presidency. So whatever we have has to be analyzed in that light.

If what you call "liberals" is not the same that we call "progressives", then I have no idea what you mean by that term. In this country it is almost unanimous that those terms are used interchangeably. In most other countries "liberalism" is equivalent to extreme right. So if you have decided to use the term as used in other countries, or if you are simply one of the few who refuses to equate the two, then you have a language barrier that makes any serious debate with you on the matter absolutely impossible.

Progressive is the opposite of Conservative. Conservatives seek to "conserve" or "preserve" things as they are now because they believe "now" is better. Progressives wish to change things or "to progress" to make them better. Whether they each succeed or not is a different matter. But obviously you prefer to discuss semantics rather than substance. So I will pass on that.

 

The social sciences are, IMO, still at a stage wherein they are more "social" than "science." But, social sciences or not, I think it helps to first read a history of any subject (from physics to sociology) before delving into its present knowledge. IOW, it's helpful to understand how and why that body of knowledge developed over time.

 

Anything that uses the scientific method is a science? My car mechanic friend will be glad to know he's earned the designation "scientist," as am I as my cooking qualifies as "science" also.

Social -studies- which is what they are, not "science" any more than philosophy is a "science," have potential to create useful knowledge and innovations. So far though they have been near exclusively the handmaiden of bad, discredited political/economic systems and propaganda, most frequently tools of state oppression and manipulation of citizens throughout the 20th century and beyond. The Soviets, just one of many examples, rationalized oppressive dictatorship, murder, famine and genocide with "science" and "logic." Fortunately for the world, their historical failurea and evil is obvious and repellent.

Social "sciences" enabled personality disordered, or at least extremely misguided people, to claim a mantle of legitimacy that has been proven not only illusory, but outright evil on a grand scale in 100s of data points. Calling fields of study that rely on vague abstractions "science" will go down as the greatest human error in the 20th century and beyond. Most importantly, scientific legitimacy requires results, whether or not a paradigm accurately yields results and explains the world... for the time being. Social studies require no results or credible explanations whatsoever, witness the hideous failures and out and out counter results of the institutional mental health industry based on the bogus "science" of psychology.

Years ago, I wondered why my university refused to designate its political studies department as "Political Science" due to many other universities doing so. At my school it was called merely "Politics." Over the years, I've come to see the wisdom in that and to understand -exactly- how social studies are not "science."

 

You can't and we should not examine other people with the intent to punish or control them. The USA, sans the **** hole we have today, is the best government and citizenry in the world, and the US makes mistakes, but tries to move forward with reasonable governance that truly benefits people and commerce. But this does not give the US the right to intervene with others and make demands for them to change. The US should establish solid relationships with all nations and work with them, not control them, to consider better paths...

 

The very concept of cultural relativism is bogus.

The extent to which a culture comes closer to objective truth is the extent to which it is better than others.

 

Confusing what some call "soft science" with "pseudoscience" makes it even worse.

Well, whoever concocted it, has no idea what Science is.

The term "exact Science" is an expression. No Science is "exact". Most of physics is based on "calculus". Which ultimately is an approximation. Science starts with observation. In Physics and Chemistry that implies measurement. But measurement is only as precise as the instruments used to measure. Which are accurate enough for most practical applications, but not what one would call "exact" in the strictest sense. That means that, according to you, no science is an actual science.

Too much nonsense. Sure you can apply the scientific method to anything. What makes something a pseudoscience is that you choose not to apply it. Astrology is a pseudoscience, not because you can't apply the scientific method. But because when you apply the scientific method to astrology, you invalidate it.

Social sciences have exact and inexact results. But mostly because it's not necessary. In History, for example, we know exactly who our founding fathers, and who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were. We have an immense body of evidence, though we can't say with complete certainty, who wrote what.

Look... what you're saying is not even on the radar of modern epistemology. The way you know that something is a science is simple: if it makes predictions. And if those predictions are falsifiable, then it's a Science.

How does History make predictions? If we state, for example, that if Madison wrote the Bill of Rights (hypothesis), then we should be able to find mention of early drafts that he submitted to Congress but were discarded. We do, in fact, find early and discarded drafts of the 2nd Amendment and others. If we find early drafts written by some other framer, then the hypothesis would be falsified. Of course the scientific process is more involved than what can be written in three or four lines in an opinion Forum. But the point is that History has met the requirements to be a Science.

 

You just want to twist what I said into something else.... something ridiculous like a two world culture

clearly you have no comprehension of what I'm talking about... not surprising, for a liberal.

Again completely missing, overlooking or simply not comprehending the effects of multi-culturism when executed on mass

In America... in America you've had

but for humanity, world wide.... we've had a liberal era that stretches from the 60's up until today. The worst of liberalism have however been in the last 30 years with the conscious democratisation of non-democratic countries, which resulted in corruption, open borders and multi-culturism.... you can add neo-liberalism, the privatisation of state owned enterprises... there' more but no doubt will simply be wasted on you

I am aware but it is wrong, because liberals are communists and that is not a progressive movement, liberalism impoverish the majority and enrich a minority. Liberalism is in favour of the minority, not the majority... that is not progressive.

 

LOL....WOW, you wrote a lot of words to ultimately say nothing.You must have a lot of time on your hands.

The bottom line, is that the term "pseudoscience" was coined by the scientific philosopher Karl Popper.
https://fs.blog/2016/01/karl-popper-on-science-pseudoscience/

Any definition ( such as the one that you provided) that does not encompass his explanation of it having to be testable in a legitimate way ( falsifiable), is self serving nonsense. Without the ability to isolate variables, you cannot have "scientific" results.The psychology's and social sciences of the the world have been trying to water down his definition for decades so that they can claim to not be included. Looks like you took the bait.....again. I am not surprised.

 

I kept reading hoping you were about to explain how you and your mechanic use the Scientific Method. Maybe all your falsifiable hypothesis you have been working on. Predictions made... And, of course, in which peer-reviewed publications we would be able to find your and your mechanic's studies.

Alas! Not there!

So you don't believe that a historical analysis of our Founding Father's discussions about... say... Impeachment... has any potential to create useful knowledge. I think it has been very useful in many court decisions.

In any case, I have no idea what that has to do with it being a Science or not. It would have to do with it being worthwhile... But nothing else.

If they're "discredited" then they're not science. But I think I understand your overall point. If I understand correctly, it would appear like you don't like Social Sciences because you don't like how they have been used. I don't like how quantum physics has been used to create nuclear bombs. But that doesn't mean I deny that it's a science.

If that's not what you meant, then explain what the hell you're talking about. What Science? What specifically is the scientific knowledge obtained using the Scientific Method that you question.

What does that have to do with Social Sciences? Still no idea. I think you are trying to say something about the so-called Scientific Socialism. Which, of course, is not a Science. But the fact that Scientific Socialism is not a science does not invalidate Social Sciences any more than the fact that Alchemy is not a Science invalidates Natural Sciences.

If I am misinterpreting in any way what you are saying, the reason is that you write a lot but with little precision. So I'm trying to make sense of it.

I still have no idea what specifically you're talking about, but you appear to be saying that...something (God knows what) was "proven ... illusory" and "evil". And, for that reason, you believe that all Social Sciences should pay the price. That confirms what I said above. It would be like saying that the fact that N Rays were proven "illusory" means that Physics is not a Science.

I will await hoping that some ulterior message has more substance and or precision than this one.

 

Ironically, the "scientific method" my mechanic and I employ in our car repair and cooking is a more legitimate form than the "social studies" employ because, if the car won't start or the soufflé fell, our "hypothesis" is not credible and discarded as it does not accurately bring results or greater factual understanding of the specifics in question. Our "science" is concrete, defined. Not so the social studies today, where hypotheses are as likely to be judged on pure feelz and no results are required. See again, the institutional mental health industry, based on the false science of "psychology" and its irrefutable history of failure and social costs.

Incidentally, "peer review" is not a part of the scientific method and never has been, presentation of results to a learned audience is a generally accepted last step, but is not required to qualify as "conducting science." But since you bring it up:



Just one particularly egregious example among many of rampant corruption in the social studies, mostly political corruption, some outright financial. It occurs with greater and greater frequency today in all the social studies.

1. I said the exact opposite of the above in the very sentence you quoted. The... exact... opposite. Unbelievable. Remember folks, ALWAYS have a WRITTEN RECORD of ANY conversation attempted with a Leftist.
2. What you are describing is an area of LEGAL studies and practice known as "legislative history." No idea how it works where you live, but in the U.S. hierarchy of legal and policy analysis, legislative history is inferior to the four corners of whatever is being discussed as interpreted by binding precedent. Legislative history is useful, but a fallback position when the law is not in one's favor or there is no binding precedent. The reason for making that clear is that it describes exactly how the law, and discussions of law, which is the primary locus of the above type of discussion, are conducted. The law is not "science" and especially not "social science." Whereas certain aspects of the law can resemble science (or more accurately mathematics), the law is not science.

No. Dishonest, intentional straw man, not surprised given the source. I -like- social studies, stated as much, and do quite a bit of it myself. Social studies are very useful in understanding the world around us generally. What I don't like is appealing to social studies as sciences because of the pernicious tendency of -bad- people to coopt and pervert social studies, to rationalize -evil- results with appeals to science and logic. This human failing perverts the beauty and usefulness of science into a RELIGION or a CULT that dehumanizes and oppresses.

For example, tens of millions of innocent people were murdered by communists/socialists in the 20th century based on a faulty -philosophy- of economics and history mischaracterized as a "science" with logical precepts. This was due to a blind acceptance of Hegelian principles as "scientific" when they are anything but. The "hypothesis" dictates that the "utopia" will result, the perfect Hegelian state, so eggs (millions of innocent lives) must be broken (enslaved or murdered) in service of the paradigm because after all, it is SCIENCE. Misused in this way, and they have been more misused than correctly used, social studies form religions and cults of priests persecuting "heretics."

Now, that's enough. Not playing your schoolmarm Q&A game further. You always play it in bad faith anyway after NEVER adequately grounding your own claims, half-claims rather, and I suspect towards other purposes than any legitimate discussion of politics.

As far as precision and my lack of it compared to what you write and post here?

Just like that, yet another LW Irony Universe BANGS into existence!

Dodging arguments you can't answer by calling them imprecisely expressed is transparent. And again... remember folks, ALWAYS have a WRITTEN RECORD... yaddayadda.

 

I'm sure that's not what you meant. But it's what you said. I'm just pointing it out. Who knows what it was you meant.

I see So you made up your own definitions. Not much can be said about terms you make up your own meaning to.

 

Sure. But this absurd idea that the social sciences are pseudo-science is yours.

Now I understand your post. You simply didn't understand Popper.

Of course. And no scientist in the world disputes that. It's exactly what I said on the post you responded to. And you obviously didn't read.

What nonsense!

You just obliterate Popper. Popper considered the Social Sciences as Sciences, in the full sense of the word. Though he sometimes questioned if they were universal.

"...physical laws, or the “laws of nature”, are valid anywhere and always; for the physical world is ruled by a system of physical uniformities invariable throughout space and time. Sociological laws, however, or the laws of social life, differ in different places and periods." (Popper, 1991, "The Poverty of Historicism", p. 5)
​

This is disputable in many cases. However, what is not disputable is that Popper never thought of them as "pseudoscience". That is your claim... and yours alone.

"The method of the social sciences, like that of the natural sciences, consists in trying out tentative solutions to those problems from which our investigations start. Solutions are proposed and criticized. If a proposed solution is not open to objective criticism, then it is excluded as unscientific." (p. 66)
​

Furthermore

"It is completely erroneous to believe that the attitude of the natural scientist is more objective than that of the social scientist… The objectivity of science is not a matter for the individual scientist, but rather the social result of mutual criticism, of the friendlyhostile division of labour among scientists, of their co-operation and also of their competition… Objectivity can only be explained in terms of social ideas such as competition (both of individual scientists and of various schools of thoughts); tradition (that is the critical tradition); social institutions (for instance, publications in various competing journals and by various competing publishers; discussions at congresses); the power of the state (that is, its political tolerance of free discussion)." (Popper, 1996, "In Search of a Better World: Lectures and Essays from Thirty Years", pp. 72-73)​

 

You left out what is probably the single most important part of the whole Scientific Method.... in which peer-reviewed publication can we see your studies?

But, of course, it's clear you confuse Science with Technology. A very common mistake that those who are not familiar with epistemology make.

Illustrate with reference, links and quotes from actual peer-reviewed studies.

Ok... that's all I needed to know to get a glimpse as to your understanding of epistemology. It is null.

So they do create useful knowledge. Ok. My bad if I misinterpreted.

Also an area of History used in law. Which is a Social Science. I could give many other examples, if that one creates confusion. But you corrected me in that they do create useful knowledge. So the point is moot.

Now it's you who misrepresent. Read again! The point is not that you "dislike social sciences" (that's just a figure of speech). the point I made is that you don't consider them science because you dislike... either their use... or misuse.. The use of Scientific knowledge is not Science. It's technology (like the nuclear bomb). And, of course, not following the Scientific Method (including peer-review) is pseudoscience. As, for example, most aspects (if not all) of so-called "Scientific Socialism". That doesn't mean, by any stretch of the imagination, that Social Sciences are not Science. Only people not familiar with epistemology would make such a claim.

Your ulterior example illustrates what I did say. So, if you want, you can try again... Bottom line, neither the fact that a scientific proposition is discredited, nor the fact that a Social Science is misused (technology), nor the fact that there is such a thing as Social pseudo-science (just like there is such a thing as Natural pseudo-sciences) imply that Social Sciences are not science.

 

They may declare that, but they don't mean in it in the least. They're actually the least able to accommodate different cultural perspectives. They spend much of their 'activism' time declaring war on different perspectives, in fact.

EG: Ultra Progressive friend returns from holiday and comments: "yeah, we had a great time in (insert non-western, non-white country here), but we really hate their patriarchal BS".

 

Terminology? Progressives are not liberal, not at all. The Centre Right is more likely to be liberal, these days.

But yes, Progressives are responsible for the insane wealth divide and growing homelessness etc. They utterly blew the wealth and privilege thing. Hubris, and assumptions about the permanence of their own safety. Ivory Tower thinking.

Have to disagree (emphatically) that any of them are even remotely socialist/communist though. They're the worst capitalists of the lot.

 

You are misusing "epistemology," not something one can be "familiar" or unfamiliar with, definitely a part of exploring the philosophy of science and its limits, in other words what kinds of certainty science can achieve and what kind of metaphysics are involved in that or not, but not the process of science or the scientific method itself. It's the difference between, for example, two Ks, Kant's Critique of Pure Reason and Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Not surprised that you don't attempt to define "epistemology" or create any sort of reasoning associated with the term, just plop it in a few times and think you've made an argument. You haven't.

Kant: https://courses.lumenlearning.com/s...of-pure-reason-preface-to-the-second-edition/

Kuhn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions

See the difference? Kant is metaphysics/epistemology, Kuhn is method. We are discussing the latter, not the former in this thread. If you want to discuss epistemology, please start a thread. I won't be contributing.

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-relationship-between-epistemology-and-science

You are mischaracterizing the scientific method once again, which as a matter of fact and not opinion does not require any "peer review" whatsoever, not surprised.

https://www.quora.com/In-the-scient...ential-part-of-the-falsifiability-of-a-theory

You have defined neither "science" nor "technology" anywhere in the thread, not surprised. No, I am not confusing the two, and no I will not continue that derail further.

Law is -not- a "social science" as a matter of fact and not opinion. It is mostly a rule-based process of interpretation and hierarchy based on agreed a priori principles and definitions that are highly jurisdiction-specific, wholly unlike any other social studies, again not surprised.

The Soviets (and Mao and Pol Pot) actually and irrefutably did consider their statecraft to be a scientific process, not a technological one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism

The last couple of sentences are unintelligible gibberish, not surprised, but funny in light of your earlier accusation that my arguments are not "precise" another term you misused, but I let that one slide.

 

You may not win many debates, but by golly you post enough crap that people simply get tired of responding to you. The above statements of yours that you then follow with quotes , are not proven by the quotes that you provided, although that is clearly your implication. It is bizarre.

Without the ability to isolate down to one variable, there is not scientific data that can result. It is like Sigmund Freud, he has lots of interesting ideas that are thought provoking and very logical, however his claims cannot be isolated down to one variable hence are literally unprovable. You can attribute adult behavior to various childhood experiences and you may be correct. However, since you cannot prove that adult behavior is the direct result of various childhood experiences, it is not a scientifically proven fact. This isnt that difficult of a concept. As usual, you are trying your best to dazzle with bullshit.

Popper...."A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific"

You cannot scientifically refute the conclusions of soft science, such as the work of Sigmund Freud, or those of social scientists. There are far too many variables involved. Hence, when conclusions from those disciplines are presented as if scientific, they are pseudoscientific. This is not my argument. It is much older than you or I. Stop acting as if i am making something up out of thin air. Yes, the side of the argument that I am taking is the one that tends to discredit the soft sciences, and you are taking the argument that wants to prop up the soft sciences. In truth, whether one calls it soft science and another calls it pseudoscience, they are talking about the same thing. It is a simple argument of semantics about the exact same principle. You dont like the connotation of it being called pseudoscience, but the lack of exactness that you referenced is specifically what is being discussed.

We have both explained our position. I cannot bear to continue with this unnecessarily pedantic discussion. Lets let our explanations speak for themself. This has went way beyond any point where I still care.

 

Absolutely. Whereas peer review is not a part of the scientific method, testing is mandatory. Hypotheses in the social studies cannot be tested in any meaningful objective way, merely agreed with or disagreed with. This is why they try and fail to insert "peer review" in place of testing. Whether they are called unscientific or pseudoscience is irrelevant, the social studies are not and cannot be science. Any aspect of them that can be tested instantly becomes science, as medicine, biology, chemistry, statistics, etc., and instantly -leaves- the realm of social studies. Same with philosophy, which is not science either, but contributes much to it.

 

I don't read minds too well, but if they declare it, and act accordingly,, that's fine by me.

You mean like "the war on Christmas"?

No idea what that has to do with anything I have said.