|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 24 2016 03:14 Lord Tolkien wrote:
I did not ask you to give me a strawman, Plansix. You're just detracting from what I would like to accomplish here.
At the moment, I would like SolaR- (or anyone else who believes something to this effect) to define, as rigorously and accurately as possible, his view of what constitutes a "true" scientific field.
I would say "hard" sciences where data is quantified/collected in a very rigorous way, variables are accounted/ controlled for, hypotheses are tested, results can be replicated by using the same protocols, and with minimal reliance on frameworks.
|
On May 24 2016 03:21 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:19 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2016 03:15 ragz_gt wrote:
I have anime avatar on twitter... but I think I don't fall in either of those category. Not all anime avatars produce sexist garbage, this is true. But there is a weird correlation between sexist garbage and anime avatars on twitter. Without the tools for further study, it can only be seen as an observed phenomena. Any insight drawn from it is pure speculation. My avatar is the drunk walrus from Alice in Wonderland. What doth this say about me?
You like children’s stories that are clearly inspired by drugs? Adventure Time and most of Merry Melodies speak to you on a deep level? Just spit balling.
|
On May 24 2016 03:20 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 24 2016 03:06 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless. Social sciences are not true science either. In what way. Social sciences do not go through the same rigorous testing that hard sciences do. Also, in social sciences you are dealing with unquantifiable data where absolute truth cannot be obtained. Social science will never reach the precision of the hard sciences. 2+2 always equals 4. Social science is more relative. Here is a decent article on the subject: blogs.scientificamerican.com
i hate to get nit-picky here but arithmetic like 2+2=4 and mathematics are not science. they are not rooted in observable reality. Mathematics exists in the human imagination and no where in the real world.
there are no spheres and straight lines in reality. they do not exist.
we can approximate and model certain things in the physical world with the aid of mathematical abstractions. but these are only approximations. sometimes very very close approximations when the model is very good.
if i have 2 apples and then my friend gives me 2 apples i then have 4 apples. that's not math.
2+2=4 is math and its conceptual.. it exists in your mind and no where in reality.
you do not run real world experiments to prove the fundamental theorem of calculus
nor do you run any real world experiments to demonstrate whether or not a matrix is orthogonally diagonalizable.
Research in combinatorics requires no laboratory. You have physics, chemistry and biology laboratories where experiments interacting with the real world are performed and measured.
|
On May 24 2016 01:21 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +If you want to argue that the evolution I pointed to is not linked in any way to cultural factors (including norms and practices) pertaining to gender, then feel free to come up with an alternate explanation. I provided you with that data because you were saying that the situation was stable in STEM fields (and that this likely disproved the validity in this case of the theories put forward by gender studies), while the opposite is true in the U.S. "Cultural" as an abstract doesn't mean much. My point is there seem to be a limit to most countries capacity to enroll women in stem courses. The US is way lower than most european countries, so it might be a completly different situation, but simply thinking education is the solution to most "social problem" is shortsighted from my point of view.
I don't think anyone has been arguing that education is going to solve almost everything. Working on gender stereotypes impacting children from early childhood onward is, however, absolutely key to achieving more equality between men and women. I don't see what would support the idea that we've currently reached an undefined and random limit. The data I provided certainly does not seem to support such a notion. Suffice to say that participation of women in most STEM fields remains rather low, but that their rate of participation has still evolved over time and that it could continue evolving. I'm not sure what point your initial sentence is supposed to support other than hand-waving away the term "cultural" for no specific reason. I illustrated it by citing gender norms/stereotypes and sexist practices.
On May 24 2016 01:21 WhiteDog wrote:
The basic idea behind this position is the very liberal/individualist philosophy that individuals should be freed from all constraints (which is why I insisted on your "restricted") - mostly from all social constraint because no one give a shit about economical constraint these days. There is a limit to how much we can, collectively, through politics, modify the social norm, mostly because a man (the species) free of social constraint does not exist. There is no direct causal relationship between two distinct dimensions that would be the social and individual : it seems people always needs ways to distinguish, define groups, differences, etc.
You are again arguing against a position I am not defending. I've never claimed "individuals should be freed from all constraints". Since we live in a social world, our identities and behaviors are socially constructed (I mean come on, we've both read Berger & Luckmann's book, among many others), and necessarily so. I haven't argued either that all social norms could be changed through political action. What I am saying, however, is that we should promote and strive for more equality between men and women in our societies, and this requires working on social norms and representations pertaining to genders.
On May 24 2016 01:21 WhiteDog wrote:
At which point those social differences become a political problem, it's very up to discussion. But somehow having more women in STEM field has become an important political topic, when the real topic should be how everybody, whatever their gender or race, should be able to find a work that's both valued by the society and that give them the means to live decently. I don't really care about rich people's problem.
I entirely agree with you on the need to achieve progress on the socioeconomic front, but this does not mean that we can't at the same time work to achieve progress in fighting sexism and racism, at both the individual and structural levels. They're not "rich people's problems".
|
On May 24 2016 03:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:20 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 03:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 24 2016 03:06 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless. Social sciences are not true science either. In what way. Social sciences do not go through the same rigorous testing that hard sciences do. Also, in social sciences you are dealing with unquantifiable data where absolute truth cannot be obtained. Social science will never reach the precision of the hard sciences. 2+2 always equals 4. Social science is more relative. Here is a decent article on the subject: blogs.scientificamerican.com i hate to get nit-picky here but arithmetic like 2+2=4 and mathematics are not science. they are not rooted in observable reality. Mathematics exists in the human imagination and no where in the real world. there are no spheres and straight lines in reality. they do not exist. we can approximate and model certain things in the physical world with the aid of mathematical abstractions. but these are only approximations. sometimes very very close approximations when the model is very good. if i have 2 apples and then my friend gives me 2 apples i then have 4 apples. that's not math. 2+2=4 is math and its conceptual.. it exists in your mind and no where in reality. you do not run real world experiments to prove the fundamental theorem of calculus nor do you run any real world experiments to demonstrate whether or not a matrix is orthogonally diagonalizable.
Math is the combination of real world observations and philosophical derivations.
You can test simple things like 2 + 2 or 3 x 3 with the apple experiment you just mentioned. You use these simple rules and derive the complex ones from them.
"If I have three boxes with thee things in each, how many things do I have?" Is VERY real world and tangible. The study of mathematics is the extrapolations of these tangible rules into more complex ones. (Its the exact same thing Humanities does actually)
Science is taking these seemingly true rules, and running experiments on them. And whether or not your counting number of feathers on a bird, number of spikes in a sensor, or qualitative observations over X number of subjects in a social science experiment--the rules remain the same.
|
please see my edit.
grouping physics, chemistry and biology together with something like combinatorics is ridiculous. math is all mind games. The university of waterloo has it right. they keep math and science separated.
|
On May 24 2016 03:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:20 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 03:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 24 2016 03:06 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless. Social sciences are not true science either. In what way. Social sciences do not go through the same rigorous testing that hard sciences do. Also, in social sciences you are dealing with unquantifiable data where absolute truth cannot be obtained. Social science will never reach the precision of the hard sciences. 2+2 always equals 4. Social science is more relative. Here is a decent article on the subject: blogs.scientificamerican.com i hate to get nit-picky here but arithmetic like 2+2=4 and mathematics are not science. they are not rooted in observable reality. Mathematics exists in the human imagination and no where in the real world. there are no spheres and straight lines in reality. they do not exist. we can approximate and model certain things in the physical world with the aid of mathematical abstractions. but these are only approximations. sometimes very very close approximations when the model is very good. if i have 2 apples and then my friend gives me 2 apples i then have 4 apples. that's not math. 2+2=4 is math and its conceptual.. it exists in your mind and no where in reality. you do not run real world experiments to prove the fundamental theorem of calculus nor do you run any real world experiments to demonstrate whether or not a matrix is orthogonally diagonalizable.
Perhaps that wasn't a good example. I was just trying to give something simple for people to understand. All I was saying is that in science you are dealing with quantifiable data in most cases. You can accurately predict that something in nature will respond the same way each and everytime. Social science doesn't work that way.
|
On May 24 2016 03:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:21 cLutZ wrote:On May 24 2016 03:19 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2016 03:15 ragz_gt wrote:
I have anime avatar on twitter... but I think I don't fall in either of those category. Not all anime avatars produce sexist garbage, this is true. But there is a weird correlation between sexist garbage and anime avatars on twitter. Without the tools for further study, it can only be seen as an observed phenomena. Any insight drawn from it is pure speculation. My avatar is the drunk walrus from Alice in Wonderland. What doth this say about me? You like children’s stories that are clearly inspired by drugs? Adventure Time and most of Merry Melodies speak to you on a deep level? Just spit balling.
I thought it was obviously the favoring of eastern religious concepts over carpenter savior stories as a reflexive act of rebellion from an over saturation of western socialization being too christian based--but I guess it could be that.
|
On May 24 2016 03:36 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On May 24 2016 03:20 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 03:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 24 2016 03:06 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless. Social sciences are not true science either. In what way. Social sciences do not go through the same rigorous testing that hard sciences do. Also, in social sciences you are dealing with unquantifiable data where absolute truth cannot be obtained. Social science will never reach the precision of the hard sciences. 2+2 always equals 4. Social science is more relative. Here is a decent article on the subject: blogs.scientificamerican.com i hate to get nit-picky here but arithmetic like 2+2=4 and mathematics are not science. they are not rooted in observable reality. Mathematics exists in the human imagination and no where in the real world. there are no spheres and straight lines in reality. they do not exist. we can approximate and model certain things in the physical world with the aid of mathematical abstractions. but these are only approximations. sometimes very very close approximations when the model is very good. if i have 2 apples and then my friend gives me 2 apples i then have 4 apples. that's not math. 2+2=4 is math and its conceptual.. it exists in your mind and no where in reality. you do not run real world experiments to prove the fundamental theorem of calculus nor do you run any real world experiments to demonstrate whether or not a matrix is orthogonally diagonalizable. Perhaps that wasn't a good example. I was just trying to give something simple for people to understand. All I was saying is that in science you are dealing with quantifiable data in most cases. You can accurately predict that something in nature will respond the same way each and everytime. Social science doesn't work that way.
sry to get nit picky... let's just get back on topic.
|
On May 24 2016 03:36 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On May 24 2016 03:20 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 03:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 24 2016 03:06 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless. Social sciences are not true science either. In what way. Social sciences do not go through the same rigorous testing that hard sciences do. Also, in social sciences you are dealing with unquantifiable data where absolute truth cannot be obtained. Social science will never reach the precision of the hard sciences. 2+2 always equals 4. Social science is more relative. Here is a decent article on the subject: blogs.scientificamerican.com i hate to get nit-picky here but arithmetic like 2+2=4 and mathematics are not science. they are not rooted in observable reality. Mathematics exists in the human imagination and no where in the real world. there are no spheres and straight lines in reality. they do not exist. we can approximate and model certain things in the physical world with the aid of mathematical abstractions. but these are only approximations. sometimes very very close approximations when the model is very good. if i have 2 apples and then my friend gives me 2 apples i then have 4 apples. that's not math. 2+2=4 is math and its conceptual.. it exists in your mind and no where in reality. you do not run real world experiments to prove the fundamental theorem of calculus nor do you run any real world experiments to demonstrate whether or not a matrix is orthogonally diagonalizable. Perhaps that wasn't a good example. I was just trying to give something simple for people to understand. All I was saying is that in science you are dealing with quantifiable data in most cases. You can accurately predict that something in nature will respond the same way each and everytime. Social science doesn't work that way.
It would take a little too long to explain why but what you're saying just isn't true.
|
On May 24 2016 03:36 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On May 24 2016 03:20 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 03:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 24 2016 03:06 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless. Social sciences are not true science either. In what way. Social sciences do not go through the same rigorous testing that hard sciences do. Also, in social sciences you are dealing with unquantifiable data where absolute truth cannot be obtained. Social science will never reach the precision of the hard sciences. 2+2 always equals 4. Social science is more relative. Here is a decent article on the subject: blogs.scientificamerican.com i hate to get nit-picky here but arithmetic like 2+2=4 and mathematics are not science. they are not rooted in observable reality. Mathematics exists in the human imagination and no where in the real world. there are no spheres and straight lines in reality. they do not exist. we can approximate and model certain things in the physical world with the aid of mathematical abstractions. but these are only approximations. sometimes very very close approximations when the model is very good. if i have 2 apples and then my friend gives me 2 apples i then have 4 apples. that's not math. 2+2=4 is math and its conceptual.. it exists in your mind and no where in reality. you do not run real world experiments to prove the fundamental theorem of calculus nor do you run any real world experiments to demonstrate whether or not a matrix is orthogonally diagonalizable. You can accurately predict that something in nature will respond the same way each and everytime.
Is quantum mechanics science?
|
On May 24 2016 03:37 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:23 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2016 03:21 cLutZ wrote:On May 24 2016 03:19 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2016 03:15 ragz_gt wrote:
I have anime avatar on twitter... but I think I don't fall in either of those category. Not all anime avatars produce sexist garbage, this is true. But there is a weird correlation between sexist garbage and anime avatars on twitter. Without the tools for further study, it can only be seen as an observed phenomena. Any insight drawn from it is pure speculation. My avatar is the drunk walrus from Alice in Wonderland. What doth this say about me? You like children’s stories that are clearly inspired by drugs? Adventure Time and most of Merry Melodies speak to you on a deep level? Just spit balling. I thought it was obviously the favoring of eastern religious concepts over carpenter savior stories as a reflexive act of rebellion from an over saturation of western socialization being too christian based--but I guess it could be that.
Must be what you said, because I clearly don't like childrens' stories with drug overtones. Roald Dahl is for the birds.
Or maybe this guy is just awesome.
|
On May 24 2016 03:38 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:36 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 03:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On May 24 2016 03:20 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 03:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 24 2016 03:06 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless. Social sciences are not true science either. In what way. Social sciences do not go through the same rigorous testing that hard sciences do. Also, in social sciences you are dealing with unquantifiable data where absolute truth cannot be obtained. Social science will never reach the precision of the hard sciences. 2+2 always equals 4. Social science is more relative. Here is a decent article on the subject: blogs.scientificamerican.com i hate to get nit-picky here but arithmetic like 2+2=4 and mathematics are not science. they are not rooted in observable reality. Mathematics exists in the human imagination and no where in the real world. there are no spheres and straight lines in reality. they do not exist. we can approximate and model certain things in the physical world with the aid of mathematical abstractions. but these are only approximations. sometimes very very close approximations when the model is very good. if i have 2 apples and then my friend gives me 2 apples i then have 4 apples. that's not math. 2+2=4 is math and its conceptual.. it exists in your mind and no where in reality. you do not run real world experiments to prove the fundamental theorem of calculus nor do you run any real world experiments to demonstrate whether or not a matrix is orthogonally diagonalizable. Perhaps that wasn't a good example. I was just trying to give something simple for people to understand. All I was saying is that in science you are dealing with quantifiable data in most cases. You can accurately predict that something in nature will respond the same way each and everytime. Social science doesn't work that way. It would take a little too long to explain why but what you're saying just isn't true.
In other words, you have a marvelous proof that the post is too small to contain?
|
The problem with such a strict definition of science it limits us by our ability gather information is refined enough to product consistent results. And the level of consistence that is acceptable is defined and restricted by the most observable of the sciences. It doesn’t take into account if the field has merit, only if our ability to observe the subject can produce finding with limited subjectivity. So human and group behavior isn’t a science until we develop a way to read people’s minds 100% accurately.
And I am with kwizach, quantum mechanics and theoretical physics can't be sciences by these really dull rules.
|
On May 24 2016 03:43 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:37 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 24 2016 03:23 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2016 03:21 cLutZ wrote:On May 24 2016 03:19 Plansix wrote:On May 24 2016 03:15 ragz_gt wrote:
I have anime avatar on twitter... but I think I don't fall in either of those category. Not all anime avatars produce sexist garbage, this is true. But there is a weird correlation between sexist garbage and anime avatars on twitter. Without the tools for further study, it can only be seen as an observed phenomena. Any insight drawn from it is pure speculation. My avatar is the drunk walrus from Alice in Wonderland. What doth this say about me? You like children’s stories that are clearly inspired by drugs? Adventure Time and most of Merry Melodies speak to you on a deep level? Just spit balling. I thought it was obviously the favoring of eastern religious concepts over carpenter savior stories as a reflexive act of rebellion from an over saturation of western socialization being too christian based--but I guess it could be that. Must be what you said, because I clearly don't like childrens' stories with drug overtones. Roald Dahl is for the birds. Or maybe this guy is just awesome.
He is pretty good, I am not going to lie. So focused in his existence and need for sea food, but still with time to be well dressed.
|
On May 24 2016 03:43 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:36 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 03:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On May 24 2016 03:20 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 03:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 24 2016 03:06 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless. Social sciences are not true science either. In what way. Social sciences do not go through the same rigorous testing that hard sciences do. Also, in social sciences you are dealing with unquantifiable data where absolute truth cannot be obtained. Social science will never reach the precision of the hard sciences. 2+2 always equals 4. Social science is more relative. Here is a decent article on the subject: blogs.scientificamerican.com i hate to get nit-picky here but arithmetic like 2+2=4 and mathematics are not science. they are not rooted in observable reality. Mathematics exists in the human imagination and no where in the real world. there are no spheres and straight lines in reality. they do not exist. we can approximate and model certain things in the physical world with the aid of mathematical abstractions. but these are only approximations. sometimes very very close approximations when the model is very good. if i have 2 apples and then my friend gives me 2 apples i then have 4 apples. that's not math. 2+2=4 is math and its conceptual.. it exists in your mind and no where in reality. you do not run real world experiments to prove the fundamental theorem of calculus nor do you run any real world experiments to demonstrate whether or not a matrix is orthogonally diagonalizable. You can accurately predict that something in nature will respond the same way each and everytime. Is quantum mechanics science?
Yes, we can accurately predict some things on the quantum level. Obviously, there are things we don't know yet and we are still learning. But the process and the end goal is still the same.
|
On May 24 2016 03:50 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:43 kwizach wrote:On May 24 2016 03:36 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 03:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On May 24 2016 03:20 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 03:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 24 2016 03:06 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless. Social sciences are not true science either. In what way. Social sciences do not go through the same rigorous testing that hard sciences do. Also, in social sciences you are dealing with unquantifiable data where absolute truth cannot be obtained. Social science will never reach the precision of the hard sciences. 2+2 always equals 4. Social science is more relative. Here is a decent article on the subject: blogs.scientificamerican.com i hate to get nit-picky here but arithmetic like 2+2=4 and mathematics are not science. they are not rooted in observable reality. Mathematics exists in the human imagination and no where in the real world. there are no spheres and straight lines in reality. they do not exist. we can approximate and model certain things in the physical world with the aid of mathematical abstractions. but these are only approximations. sometimes very very close approximations when the model is very good. if i have 2 apples and then my friend gives me 2 apples i then have 4 apples. that's not math. 2+2=4 is math and its conceptual.. it exists in your mind and no where in reality. you do not run real world experiments to prove the fundamental theorem of calculus nor do you run any real world experiments to demonstrate whether or not a matrix is orthogonally diagonalizable. You can accurately predict that something in nature will respond the same way each and everytime. Is quantum mechanics science? Yes, we can accurately predict some things on the quantum level. Obviously, there are things we don't know yet and we are still learning. But the process and the end goal is still the same.
Can you accurately (= in a non-probabilistic manner) predict the orbital position of electrons in atoms, given their momentum?
|
On May 24 2016 03:50 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 03:43 kwizach wrote:On May 24 2016 03:36 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 03:30 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On May 24 2016 03:20 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 03:07 Lord Tolkien wrote:On May 24 2016 03:06 SolaR- wrote:On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless. Social sciences are not true science either. In what way. Social sciences do not go through the same rigorous testing that hard sciences do. Also, in social sciences you are dealing with unquantifiable data where absolute truth cannot be obtained. Social science will never reach the precision of the hard sciences. 2+2 always equals 4. Social science is more relative. Here is a decent article on the subject: blogs.scientificamerican.com i hate to get nit-picky here but arithmetic like 2+2=4 and mathematics are not science. they are not rooted in observable reality. Mathematics exists in the human imagination and no where in the real world. there are no spheres and straight lines in reality. they do not exist. we can approximate and model certain things in the physical world with the aid of mathematical abstractions. but these are only approximations. sometimes very very close approximations when the model is very good. if i have 2 apples and then my friend gives me 2 apples i then have 4 apples. that's not math. 2+2=4 is math and its conceptual.. it exists in your mind and no where in reality. you do not run real world experiments to prove the fundamental theorem of calculus nor do you run any real world experiments to demonstrate whether or not a matrix is orthogonally diagonalizable. You can accurately predict that something in nature will respond the same way each and everytime. Is quantum mechanics science? Yes, we can accurately predict some things on the quantum level. Obviously, there are things we don't know yet and we are still learning. But the process and the end goal is still the same.
Have you ever taken a sociology class before? Claiming that field has is less observable data than quantum mechanics is a bit of a stretch.
|
On May 24 2016 03:35 Naracs_Duc wrote:
Math is the combination of real world observations and philosophical derivations.
for it to become the topic of a mathematician the first thing you do is remove the real world. Your imagination supersedes your observations. Now you may take these results over to your friend the physicist... and say .. "hey .. this might help model this other thing you are trying to predict". But, that's not math.. that's physics.
solving linear diff eq's has nothing to do with reality... its all in your mind. a physicist may rely upon its result and run over to their physics laboratory and do something real with it. but the math prof that solved it has no lab... they never thinks about the real world... in fact, the real world interferes with the imagination process.
you may take the result of the fundamental theorem of calculus and use it in physics. But the steps of its proof are all in your mind and no where in reality. And as soon as you use it in physics it becomes a mere approximation. The math itself.. is perfect.
|
On May 24 2016 03:16 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2016 02:37 Ghostcom wrote:
Social Science is a Scientific Field. Woman studies is not. It is at best a sub-specialty.
If the statement that "every country is misogynistic" is true, then so is "every country is misandric" as males occupy the extremes when it comes to almost all applicable parameters. Painting with such a broad brush is pretty much useless. This absurdly hilarious to me.
Would you like to elaborate or do you prefer to stay non-contributive?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
