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 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.
To clarify, most modern work in epistemology do not believe social science to be science in the same like physics and such. Social sciences are always historical, and thus are not "refutable" in the popperian sense. It doesn't mean that they are not "science", just that they are different.
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.
Here are a couple soundbytes that capture the gist of why social science is in a different class of rigor from the natural sciences:
I am asking you to define what constitutes a "true" science, not give long out-dated soundbytes of pithy yet unproven statements and, ultimately, deflections.
In essence, I'm asking you what a science is (or fundamentally, what is scientific epistemology), and, from that starting point, hope to logically derive the view that "social sciences" cannot be considered a science from it.
All you said was "in what way." Those are classic clips of bright people briefly summarizing for the laymen what the general difference is between the levels of rigor. There hasn't been a scientific revolution between Feynman's death and now. I don't know why you would call his words outdated (I assume you weren't calling the living Chomsky outdated), the scientific method isn't some kind trend.
On May 24 2016 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm not sure amuses me more, when people here get in a math/science tizzy or when they try to discuss women. When they manage to discuss both at the same time it's pure awesome though
Your comment about everyone on TL being a huge math nerd and pouncing on the topic like the only girl at the party hold true to this day. And the discussions about women/sexism always start and end in the exact same place, no matter how many times we go over the same points. And the women's studies meme continues to be a thing.
So we cannot use cell theory or germ theory, for instance, as the basis of our understanding and modeling of, say, vaccine creation? Theories and frameworks form the fundamental basis of all scientific knowledge, to exclude it as part of a definition of science, when the goal of science is to establish working theoretical models to understand phenomena (natural or human), seems dangerous.
In any event, under this definition, most (if not all) social sciences fall under the category of science nowadays. Economics especially (and indeed the primary criticism of the field by the heterodox schools is that mainstream economics is far too empirically minded), but sociology. psychology, etc. all at present work empirically. Good sociological studies follow the scientific method as scrupulously as possible. Indeed, a reading of Durkheim's Suicide should dispel the notion that sociology can't readily follow scientific epistemology.
It is social science (well, specific economics) departments which are currently innovating new applications of statistical approaches and analysis, after all.
I think you're misinterpreting what I said, and note I said minimal reliance. I'm referring to theories that aren't hypothesis driven. Cell theory and germ theory are old as shit too, so I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make with them. The germ theory of disease states that some diseases are caused by micro organisms-- this is not a particularly useful statement, though Koch's postulates are a refinement upon this observation that can be applied in a scientific way. Observatory statements/ theories like cell theory and germ theory have great value, but ultimately (as the goal should be) we move to an empirical test of these generalizations and base future research and knowledge on our empirical findings instead of that. Germ theory and cell theory were developed to an extent by groping in the dark and describing an object that we couldn't see; with modern techniques we've flipped on the lights and can fully observe. If you can never flip on the lights, then...
There's a lot of statistics and modeling in the biological sciences. I wouldn't say it's behind economics by any means.
Alright, I think I've got a better grasp of what you're saying. The use of those two theories were of old models of natural phenomena that were radical for their time, and were utilized due prior to the definitive discovery and observation of either cells or germs, yet still served as functioning models for further rationalization and study. The same thing applies to the social sciences. The models remain useful even if they cannot be fully proven and observed, and can be further refined or discarded based upon further research.
Additionally, I do not mean to say that there is no use of statistical modeling and analysis in the biological sciences, merely that many new statistical modeling innovations are being spearheaded by econometrics and sociological departments and theories. Modern agent-based modelling, for instance (which has the potential to tackle one of the common criticisms of the economic "rational actor" and of social sciences in general), was born out of game theory and computational sociology, and, with further refinement, has major implications for social science and fields like biology/ecology.
On May 24 2016 04:37 Naracs_Duc wrote: this is not the fundamental theorem of algebra,
lol. yes it is the fundamental theorem of algebra. and the fundamental theorem of calculus is the fundamental theorem of calculus. A is A.
all of calculus rests upon the fundamental theorem of calculus and mathematicians struggled to prove it and did so without a laboratory or a single observation based on reality. Not One.
i think Liebnitz and Newton disputed over who discovered it first and since there are no materials or lab it was a shouting match with Judge Judy telling them she does not accept hearsay in her court room.
as far as the evolution of the epsilon/delta proof of the fundamental theorem ... i'm not sure who did what.. but whoever did it ... it had zero to do with the real world.
Modern agent-based modelling, for instance (which has the potential to tackle one of the common criticisms of the economic "rational actor" and of social sciences in general), was born out of game theory and computational sociology, and, with further refinement, has major implications for social science and fields like biology/ecology.
What's the definite use of agent based modelling ? Agent modelling is mainly used in microeconomy, it has some use in regards to various micro problems like insurance. It's very weak to understand anything relevant from a macroeconomic standpoint. Just saying, but let's take an exemple : principal agent models all conclude that social insurance system are inefficient due to information asymetry, while we know that the opposite is true. You're deluding yourself into thinking such models are solid enough that they can change social sciences. In fact, in social sciences, models cannot be fully proven, but cannot be discarded either : social sciences are not popperian, you can't "refute" what is historical. There is no objective way to discard a model.
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.
Here are a couple soundbytes that capture the gist of why social science is in a different class of rigor from the natural sciences:
I am asking you to define what constitutes a "true" science, not give long out-dated soundbytes of pithy yet unproven statements and, ultimately, deflections.
In essence, I'm asking you what a science is (or fundamentally, what is scientific epistemology), and, from that starting point, hope to logically derive the view that "social sciences" cannot be considered a science from it.
All you said was "in what way." Those are classic clips of bright people briefly summarizing for the laymen what the general difference is between the levels of rigor. There hasn't been a scientific revolution between Feynman's death and now. I don't know why you would call his words outdated (I assume you weren't calling the living Chomsky outdated), the scientific method isn't some kind trend.
First of all, there absolutely has been an "empirical" revolution in the field of social science. Particularly in economics, but in sociology as well, there's been an explosion in the use of empirical tools and methods of analysis. The use of increasingly-complex models allows sociologists, economists, and other social scientists to more accurately plot out the niceties of human behavior empirically, now more than ever.
As for Chomsky, he's generally viewed as a political activist, philosopher, and critic as opposed to someone working in the field of social science. He is certainly relevant in a discussion if we were talking about,say, Marxist critiques of US history, but otherwise I've never seen him talked about once in a social science research paper.
Finally, that segment you linked was specifically in regards to post-modernism, and somewhat tangentially about the humanities as opposed to focusing on social science. While I am well aware he has stated before that he does not believe that the social sciences do not presently have the foundation necessary to consider itself a science (on what basis?), it is a somewhat disingenuous post given his focus is elsewhere.
On May 24 2016 04:37 Naracs_Duc wrote: this is not the fundamental theorem of algebra,
lol. yes it is the fundamental theorem of algebra. and the fundamental theorem of calculus is the fundamental theorem of calculus. A is A.
all of calculus rests upon the fundamental theorem of calculus and mathematicians struggled to prove it and did so without a laboratory or a single observation based on reality. Not One.
i think Liebnitz and Newton disputed over who discovered it first and since there are no materials or lab it was a shouting match with Judge Judy telling them she does not accept hearsay in her court room.
as far as the evolution of the epsilon/delta proof of the fundamental theorem ... i'm not sure who did what.. but whoever did it ... it had zero to do with the real world.
Its literally in the link. The theorem is in the context of solving polynomials with algebra, that's it. It does not create the axiom for which algebra is based on, nor is it the axiom in which the parts of algebra is based on. Its literally in the article itself that it says that. At least read it before trying to retort it.
Literally says:
In spite of its name, there is no purely algebraic proof of the theorem, since any proof must use the completeness of the reals (or some other equivalent formulation of completeness), which is not an algebraic concept. Additionally, it is not fundamental for modern algebra; its name was given at a time when the study of algebra was mainly concerned with the solutions of polynomial equations with real or complex coefficients.
Modern agent-based modelling, for instance (which has the potential to tackle one of the common criticisms of the economic "rational actor" and of social sciences in general), was born out of game theory and computational sociology, and, with further refinement, has major implications for social science and fields like biology/ecology.
What's the definite use of agent based modelling ? Agent modelling is mainly used in microeconomy, it has some use in regards to various micro problems like insurance. It's very weak to understand anything relevant from a macroeconomic standpoint. Just saying, but let's take an exemple : principal agent models all conclude that social insurance system are inefficient due to information asymetry, while we know that the opposite is true. You're deluding yourself into thinking such models are solid enough that they can change social sciences. In fact, in social sciences, models cannot be fully proven, but cannot be discarded either : social sciences are not popperian, you can't "refute" what is historical. There is no objective way to discard a model.
So the new goal post is that if can't discard a model its not science?
Modern agent-based modelling, for instance (which has the potential to tackle one of the common criticisms of the economic "rational actor" and of social sciences in general), was born out of game theory and computational sociology, and, with further refinement, has major implications for social science and fields like biology/ecology.
What's the definite use of agent based modelling ? Agent modelling is mainly used in microeconomy, it has some use in regards to various micro problems like insurance. It's very weak to understand anything relevant from a macroeconomic standpoint. Just saying, but let's take an exemple : principal agent models all conclude that social insurance system are inefficient due to information asymetry, while we know that the opposite is true. You're deluding yourself into thinking such models are solid enough that they can change social sciences. In fact, in social sciences, models cannot be fully proven, but cannot be discarded either : social sciences are not popperian, you can't "refute" what is historical. There is no objective way to discard a model.
So the new goal post is that if can't discard a model its not science?
I never said it's not science, it's not science in the popperian sense. For popper, science is refutable, advance by proving / discarding theories through repetitive experiment (it's the idea of white and black swan ; if a scientific says that "all swans are white" he is right until someone prove that there is a black swan, then he is discarded). In social science, this is all impossible : for Popper, history, and everything around it (social science are historical) were not science. Since Popper, we evolved in many ways, but there is still a difference between social science and other type of science (no laws but tendancies, no reproductive experimentation, no control over the context, no way to get out of the historical context and thus no everything equal refutable assertions, etc).
From a mathematical standpoint, in economy for exemple, this leads to various new types of modelisation (for exemple, models that are never stable but revolve around various equilibrium) or distinction between what can be assessed statistically and what is not (knightian uncertainty).
Modern agent-based modelling, for instance (which has the potential to tackle one of the common criticisms of the economic "rational actor" and of social sciences in general), was born out of game theory and computational sociology, and, with further refinement, has major implications for social science and fields like biology/ecology.
What's the definite use of agent based modelling ? Agent modelling is mainly used in microeconomy, it has some use in regards to various micro problems like insurance. It's very weak to understand anything relevant from a macroeconomic standpoint. Just saying, but let's take an exemple : principal agent models all conclude that social insurance system are inefficient due to information asymetry, while we know that the opposite is true. You're deluding yourself into thinking such models are solid enough that they can change social sciences. In fact, in social sciences, models cannot be fully proven, but cannot be discarded either : social sciences are not popperian, you can't "refute" what is historical. There is no objective way to discard a model.
So the new goal post is that if can't discard a model its not science?
Its not "if we can't now" its "if there is no proposed set of evidence that would refute it".
Looking at LT's applications of "feminist modes and frames of analysis":
There's an entire body of literature on the subject. The short answer with respect to policy is: yes, most notably with regards to policies impacting specifically women, children and families. Having women in leadership positions also helps negate restrictive gender stereotypes about the roles of women in society.
There's bullshit litterature on many subjects. You're telling me the core arguments for women in politics are contradictory : they negate "restrictive" (whatever that mean) gender stereotypes, but mainly play a role in what is traditionally considered to be women subjects (familly, children). A rich woman is rich before all, and it is this reality that define her political stances. Gender or race diversity is used as some kind of way to legitimate our ploutocratic democracy and the election of specific individuals that are, more often than not, originating from rich families. Hence the reason why the left and the right both love diversity.
That's a very different object of study, and different norms are at play.
And yet it's the same theorical argument.
What matters is how it has changed over time. And it appears to have been growing in several fields over the last few decades.
If it is abnormally low, and increase but still stays below the norm, it can be argued that its a specificity of the US more than anything. In France, women in stem related courses account for at least 20 % of student in 2000, up to 40 %, with 25 % on average and we're not particularly advanced.
I believe this is you looking at the world through your class warfare goggles. There's no reason a rich woman should be rich before all, and not woman before all, or bike rider before all if that happens to be her hobby. In fact, the whole "before all" is a red herring. She is rich, and a woman, and a bike rider, and a soccer mom, and makes decisions based on all these factors, as well as her ideology.
Oh, and dismissing an entire scientific field (woman studies) because it doesn't agree with your world view is extremely myopic.
Woman studies lol.
I have not taken a class in any gender, sexuality, or feminist studies. However, I have utilized feminist modes and frames of analysis before, and I see the value and utility of applying post-structuralist critical theories of gender and sexuality into the study of history and other facets of the humanities, and to argue that gender and sexuality do not play a key component of human behavior and the psyche is dubious.
I see nothing wrong with the field, in principle.
You see that he is not assuming the spherical chicken, then testing to see what the error is in the estimated time (using his model) and the actual time of cooking. He is engaging in a very different kind of activity. Describing them using the same moniker is quite silly.
On May 24 2016 06:10 GreenHorizons wrote: I'm not sure amuses me more, when people here get in a math/science tizzy or when they try to discuss women. When they manage to discuss both at the same time it's pure awesome though
Your comment about everyone on TL being a huge math nerd and pouncing on the topic like the only girl at the party hold true to this day. And the discussions about women/sexism always start and end in the exact same place, no matter how many times we go over the same points. And the women's studies meme continues to be a thing.
Secretly I'm hoping Trump will say something provocative enough in the next few hours that this discussion becomes sidelined in the process.
The Obama administration has quietly seeded the diplomatic bed for its next push to transfer detainees out of Guantánamo Bay, the Guardian has learned, as Barack Obama aims to reduce the prison’s population before leaving office.
While it is unclear if the transfers will occur in one wave, as with the April transfer of nine detainees to Saudi Arabia, there is an expectation that the departure of 22 or 23 men will occur by the end of July. There are currently 80 men detained at Guantánamo, the lowest number since the US opened the wartime prison in 2002.
All the detainees for whom US diplomats have secured arrangements to leave Guantánamo have been officially approved for transfer, either by a 2010 internal review process or through quasi-parole hearings known as Periodic Review Boards.
The US holds 28 detainees approved for transfer, so the men’s departure would nearly empty Guantánamo of such designated detainees, substantially clearing a backlog that has lasted years.
Modern agent-based modelling, for instance (which has the potential to tackle one of the common criticisms of the economic "rational actor" and of social sciences in general), was born out of game theory and computational sociology, and, with further refinement, has major implications for social science and fields like biology/ecology.
What's the definite use of agent based modelling ? Agent modelling is mainly used in microeconomy, it has some use in regards to various micro problems like insurance. It's very weak to understand anything relevant from a macroeconomic standpoint. Just saying, but let's take an exemple : principal agent models all conclude that social insurance system are inefficient due to information asymetry, while we know that the opposite is true. You're deluding yourself into thinking such models are solid enough that they can change social sciences. In fact, in social sciences, models cannot be fully proven, but cannot be discarded either : social sciences are not popperian, you can't "refute" what is historical. There is no objective way to discard a model.
So the new goal post is that if can't discard a model its not science?
I never said it's not science, it's not science in the popperian sense. For popper, science is refutable, advance by proving / discarding theories through repetitive experiment (it's the idea of white and black swan ; if a scientific says that "all swans are white" he is right until someone prove that there is a black swan, then he is discarded). In social science, this is all impossible : for Popper, history, and everything around it (social science are historical) were not science. Since Popper, we evolved in many ways, but there is still a difference between social science and other type of science (no laws but tendancies, no reproductive experimentation, no control over the context, no way to get out of the historical context and thus no everything equal refutable assertions, etc).
From a mathematical standpoint, in economy for exemple, this leads to various new types of modelisation (for exemple, models that are never stable but revolve around various equilibrium) or distinction between what can be assessed statistically and what is not (knightian uncertainty).
So we are in agreement that social sciences are indeed a science, and that social sciences indeed has quantifiable variables, and that social sciences does also indeed have estimations and causalities (as opposed to direct predictions), and that the main differentiator is that you want science to not be rooted in historical observations as its impossible to refute historical observations, (I've seen black and white swans versus Swans are black or white) which is something I don't fully disagree with, although I do a little bit.
I think we are at the point that we are close enough in agreement that moving any further will lead to an argument in semantics more than content.
Modern agent-based modelling, for instance (which has the potential to tackle one of the common criticisms of the economic "rational actor" and of social sciences in general), was born out of game theory and computational sociology, and, with further refinement, has major implications for social science and fields like biology/ecology.
What's the definite use of agent based modelling ? Agent modelling is mainly used in microeconomy, it has some use in regards to various micro problems like insurance. It's very weak to understand anything relevant from a macroeconomic standpoint. Just saying, but let's take an exemple : principal agent models all conclude that social insurance system are inefficient due to information asymetry, while we know that the opposite is true. You're deluding yourself into thinking such models are solid enough that they can change social sciences. In fact, in social sciences, models cannot be fully proven, but cannot be discarded either : social sciences are not popperian, you can't "refute" what is historical. There is no objective way to discard a model.
So the new goal post is that if can't discard a model its not science?
Looking at LT's applications of "feminist modes and frames of analysis"
As noted, I have not seriously studied in the field, but I have examined, for instance, Latin American history through a feminist/gendered lens to understand societal constructs of the time. It was quite useful as a added mode of analysis in that history/humanities course.
I have no comments on it's value as a social science.
There's an entire body of literature on the subject. The short answer with respect to policy is: yes, most notably with regards to policies impacting specifically women, children and families. Having women in leadership positions also helps negate restrictive gender stereotypes about the roles of women in society.
There's bullshit litterature on many subjects. You're telling me the core arguments for women in politics are contradictory : they negate "restrictive" (whatever that mean) gender stereotypes, but mainly play a role in what is traditionally considered to be women subjects (familly, children). A rich woman is rich before all, and it is this reality that define her political stances. Gender or race diversity is used as some kind of way to legitimate our ploutocratic democracy and the election of specific individuals that are, more often than not, originating from rich families. Hence the reason why the left and the right both love diversity.
That's a very different object of study, and different norms are at play.
And yet it's the same theorical argument.
What matters is how it has changed over time. And it appears to have been growing in several fields over the last few decades.
If it is abnormally low, and increase but still stays below the norm, it can be argued that its a specificity of the US more than anything. In France, women in stem related courses account for at least 20 % of student in 2000, up to 40 %, with 25 % on average and we're not particularly advanced.
I believe this is you looking at the world through your class warfare goggles. There's no reason a rich woman should be rich before all, and not woman before all, or bike rider before all if that happens to be her hobby. In fact, the whole "before all" is a red herring. She is rich, and a woman, and a bike rider, and a soccer mom, and makes decisions based on all these factors, as well as her ideology.
Oh, and dismissing an entire scientific field (woman studies) because it doesn't agree with your world view is extremely myopic.
Woman studies lol.
I have not taken a class in any gender, sexuality, or feminist studies. However, I have utilized feminist modes and frames of analysis before, and I see the value and utility of applying post-structuralist critical theories of gender and sexuality into the study of history and other facets of the humanities, and to argue that gender and sexuality do not play a key component of human behavior and the psyche is dubious.
I see nothing wrong with the field, in principle.
You might agree with me that gender, sexuality and "feminist" studies (to me feminist studies is an oxymoron but whatever) is a very broad vision. There are a lot of things behind all that, some are brilliant, some are decent and valuable to understand certain aspect of our society, others are complete shit. The problem is that the shit part of those studies tend to gain power for various reasons (mainly that the field is almost entirely dominated by women and that, for some reasons that has a lot to do with the modern media, the field overvalue radical thinking rather than nuanced, limited and thought-out approach).
I think I understand your viewpoint and can tentatively agree with you here in part, with the caveat that I have never taken such a course and cannot comment on the "shit" parts, or .
I am asking you to define what constitutes a "true" science, not give long out-dated soundbytes of pithy yet unproven statements and, ultimately, deflections.
In essence, I'm asking you what a science is (or fundamentally, what is scientific epistemology), and, from that starting point, hope to logically derive the view that "social sciences" cannot be considered a science from it.
I can answer this but I'll be boring and almost impossible to understand due to my lack of vocabulary in english lol.
I believe I've got a general idea of what you've been talking about. You are referring to Popper and his philosophy of science. That scientific theories cannot be proven, only falsified, and that models and theories "evolve" based on the fittest (over which best advances scientific knowledge). Your argument is that, as social science theories cannot be falsified, they do not, in the Popperian sense, technically constitute a science, due to being historical in nature (I'll have to ponder this part), but they still advance scientific and human knowledge and are still essentially sciences despite not fitting the technical term. Have I gotten your viewpoint correct? It's been a long time since I last read Popper so feel free to correct me. I believe we agree for the most part, but I would like to be sure.
As for agent-based modelling, as far as I understand, it is being talked about in economics circles because it has good potential to replace the current DSGE models if it can be greatly upscaled, with the ability to create complex and ultimately volatile systems (which were difficult to do under old DSGE modelling), which, given development, would allow for much better forecasting. Similar such models allow for greater predictions of volatility among sample groups, and better address the criticism of inaccuracies in generalized, rational actor models.
iirc isn't agent based modeling also used in public health, atmospheric modeling (usually in air pollution research), forestry (usually fires), etc... Or am I misunderstanding it as something else?
On May 24 2016 07:49 Naracs_Duc wrote: iirc isn't agent based modeling also used in public health, atmospheric modeling (usually in air pollution research), forestry (usually fires), etc... Or am I misunderstanding it as something else?
It is. It's being increasingly adopted in biology, ecology, and environmental studies to better understand epidemics, invasive species, etc, but I mostly mentioned it because as a statistical model and analytical tool, it was originally pioneered by social science departments (to dispel the notion that social sciences are not empirical).
EPT
