|
On May 18 2009 00:12 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 00:08 Foucault wrote:On May 17 2009 23:52 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:50 Orome wrote:On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote:
Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific. For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim? Personal observation and opinion. It's not a claim I'm really going to defend or stand by too much. The difference is that I admit that. Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable. With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes. Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true. Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within. Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion.
Things are definately more than just true or not. Maybe not in math though.
Evidence comes in different forms, qualitative research for example is often used in social sciences, just because the "traditional" scientific methods can't measure complicated processes in society, and give results which actually depict reality.
I've done research and I'm about to research even more this fall, probably about psychiatry and what defines mental "illness" (not that anyone cares but yeah).
So I've studied philosophy of science, method, theory and all that but it's a very complicated and huge field.
|
On May 18 2009 00:19 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 00:12 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:08 Foucault wrote:On May 17 2009 23:52 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:50 Orome wrote:On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote:
Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific. For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim? Personal observation and opinion. It's not a claim I'm really going to defend or stand by too much. The difference is that I admit that. Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable. With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes. Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true. Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within. Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion. What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/IIprocess.shtml
Sure, there is always bias in both. The thing is that statistical studies are data, whereas case studies tend to have inferences and conclusions built into them. Otherwise you just have a statistical study.
|
On May 18 2009 00:22 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 00:12 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:08 Foucault wrote:On May 17 2009 23:52 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:50 Orome wrote:On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote:
Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific. For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim? Personal observation and opinion. It's not a claim I'm really going to defend or stand by too much. The difference is that I admit that. Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable. With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes. Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true. Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within. Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion. Things are definately more than just true or not. Maybe not in math though. Evidence comes in different forms, qualitative research for example is often used in social sciences, just because the "traditional" scientific methods can't measure complicated processes in society, and give results which actually depict reality.
Things are either true or not. There is no gray area. What is a grey area is our view of whether or not the statement/claim is true: we can't really tell, but might be kinda sure its true.
I don't think lower standards should be applied to social sciences in terms of what evidence is enough to consider something true or not. If there is a lack of evidence due to the nature of what is being studied, then admit that and state that the certainty of whether the claim or true or not cannot be concluded at as high a certainty as in disciplines where there is more data.
|
On May 18 2009 00:22 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 00:19 Jibba wrote:On May 18 2009 00:12 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:08 Foucault wrote:On May 17 2009 23:52 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:50 Orome wrote:On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote:
Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific. For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim? Personal observation and opinion. It's not a claim I'm really going to defend or stand by too much. The difference is that I admit that. Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable. With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes. Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true. Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within. Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion. What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/IIprocess.shtml Sure, there is always bias in both. The thing is that statistical studies are data, whereas case studies tend to have inferences and conclusions built into them. Otherwise you just have a statistical study.
Yea but try measuring feelings with numbers. Modern psychology tries to do this alot but how accurate is it really. Is it even possible to depict feelings with numbers and "data" for instance?
Statistical studies also have conclusions built into them, the pre-knowledge of the researcher and the way he conducts his research.
|
On May 18 2009 00:26 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 00:22 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:19 Jibba wrote:On May 18 2009 00:12 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:08 Foucault wrote:On May 17 2009 23:52 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:50 Orome wrote:On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote:
Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific. For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim? Personal observation and opinion. It's not a claim I'm really going to defend or stand by too much. The difference is that I admit that. Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable. With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes. Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true. Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within. Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion. What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/IIprocess.shtml Sure, there is always bias in both. The thing is that statistical studies are data, whereas case studies tend to have inferences and conclusions built into them. Otherwise you just have a statistical study. Yea but try measuring feelings with numbers. Modern psychology tries to do this alot but how accurate is it really. Is it even possible to depict feelings with numbers and "data" for instance? Statistical studies also have conclusions built into them, the pre-knowledge of the researcher and the way he conducts his research.
Things should work like this:
1. Data gathered with the least possible influence of bias from data gathering.
2. Data analyzed to form theories.
3. More data either supports or works against theory.
You can use case studies or whatever you want to form the data, though it's naturally not all equal.
edit: That's really just the scientific method. My problem comes when people don't have data and so just claim their statement is true, or their data is limited in scope and/or possible bias.
An example from the article in the OP is that people tend to pick protoss as their favorite race because it is masculine and/or represents the future of human civilization, or whatever the author said. No data, just a statement.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 18 2009 00:22 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 00:19 Jibba wrote:On May 18 2009 00:12 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:08 Foucault wrote:On May 17 2009 23:52 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:50 Orome wrote:On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote:
Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific. For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim? Personal observation and opinion. It's not a claim I'm really going to defend or stand by too much. The difference is that I admit that. Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable. With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes. Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true. Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within. Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion. What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/IIprocess.shtml Sure, there is always bias in both. The thing is that statistical studies are data, whereas case studies tend to have inferences and conclusions built into them. Otherwise you just have a statistical study. You're speaking as if statistics are infallible when really they're the most exploited type of data there is. Let me choose the data sets and I can run linear regressions until I prove the Moon is made of cheese. That's why I asked about things like biology/geology/etc. Those fields typically rely on case studies rather than statistical analysis.
|
On May 18 2009 00:27 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 00:26 Foucault wrote:On May 18 2009 00:22 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:19 Jibba wrote:On May 18 2009 00:12 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:08 Foucault wrote:On May 17 2009 23:52 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:50 Orome wrote:On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote:
Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific. For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim? Personal observation and opinion. It's not a claim I'm really going to defend or stand by too much. The difference is that I admit that. Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable. With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes. Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true. Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within. Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion. What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/IIprocess.shtml Sure, there is always bias in both. The thing is that statistical studies are data, whereas case studies tend to have inferences and conclusions built into them. Otherwise you just have a statistical study. Yea but try measuring feelings with numbers. Modern psychology tries to do this alot but how accurate is it really. Is it even possible to depict feelings with numbers and "data" for instance? Statistical studies also have conclusions built into them, the pre-knowledge of the researcher and the way he conducts his research. Things should work like this: 1. Data gathered with the least possible influence of bias from data gathering. 2. Data analyzed to form theories. 3. More data either supports or works against theory. You can use case studies or whatever you want to form the data, though it's naturally not all equal. edit: That's really just the scientific method. My problem comes when people don't have data and so just claim their statement is true.
Yeah but you have a false assumption that quantitative research gets "objective" results, which isn't true. There's no such thing as non-biased data.
Like I said earlier, you think from a very conventional scientific standpoint, which is sometimes not possible when it comes to more complex and "human" things like feelings, thoughts etc. Whenever you measure something, you are making an assumption that the thing you're trying to measure actually fit's your idea of how it should be measured. Therefore there is a tendency to make data fit into your pre-thought out slots.
And lol data, I could make a statistical connection about fact that I've gotten a headache 3 times when I've worn my blue shirt. But the headache doesn't have anything to do with my shirt at all, it's just a statistical coincidence. Don't put too much faith in your data.
|
On May 18 2009 00:32 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 00:27 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:26 Foucault wrote:On May 18 2009 00:22 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:19 Jibba wrote:On May 18 2009 00:12 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:08 Foucault wrote:On May 17 2009 23:52 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:50 Orome wrote:On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote:
Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific. For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim? Personal observation and opinion. It's not a claim I'm really going to defend or stand by too much. The difference is that I admit that. Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable. With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes. Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true. Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within. Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion. What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/IIprocess.shtml Sure, there is always bias in both. The thing is that statistical studies are data, whereas case studies tend to have inferences and conclusions built into them. Otherwise you just have a statistical study. Yea but try measuring feelings with numbers. Modern psychology tries to do this alot but how accurate is it really. Is it even possible to depict feelings with numbers and "data" for instance? Statistical studies also have conclusions built into them, the pre-knowledge of the researcher and the way he conducts his research. Things should work like this: 1. Data gathered with the least possible influence of bias from data gathering. 2. Data analyzed to form theories. 3. More data either supports or works against theory. You can use case studies or whatever you want to form the data, though it's naturally not all equal. edit: That's really just the scientific method. My problem comes when people don't have data and so just claim their statement is true. Yeah but you have a false assumption that quantitative research gets "objective" results, which isn't true. There's no such thing as non-biased data. Like I said earlier, you think from a very conventional scientific standpoint, which is sometimes not possible when it comes to more complex and "human" things like feelings, thoughts etc. Whenever you measure something, you are making an assumption that the thing you're trying to measure actually fit's your idea of how it should be measured. Therefore there is a tendency to make data fit into your pre-thought out slots. And lol data, I could make a statistical connection about fact that I've gotten a headache 3 times when I've worn my blue shirt. But the headache doesn't have anything to do with my shirt at all, it's just a statistical coincidence. Don't put too much faith in your data.
Data is data. How significant it is depends on how large the sample is and what other possible variables can influence the data.
Lack of data is not an excuse for lower standards of what is considered true or false. If it's difficult to gather data in the social sciences, then deal with it and admit that conclusions of similar certainty to hard sciences are difficult to obtain rather than just lowering the standards.
|
On May 17 2009 04:57 RHCPgergo wrote:
In addition to the nydus canal, the hatchery looks like a thing with multiple vaginas. And larvas come out of them... such an insult to women.
i never thought i would find a thread where it would be appropriate to post this but holy shit here it is
oh btw NSFW
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 18 2009 00:40 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 00:32 Foucault wrote:On May 18 2009 00:27 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:26 Foucault wrote:On May 18 2009 00:22 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:19 Jibba wrote:On May 18 2009 00:12 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:08 Foucault wrote:On May 17 2009 23:52 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:50 Orome wrote:
[quote]
For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim? Personal observation and opinion. It's not a claim I'm really going to defend or stand by too much. The difference is that I admit that. Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable. With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes. Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true. Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within. Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion. What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/IIprocess.shtml Sure, there is always bias in both. The thing is that statistical studies are data, whereas case studies tend to have inferences and conclusions built into them. Otherwise you just have a statistical study. Yea but try measuring feelings with numbers. Modern psychology tries to do this alot but how accurate is it really. Is it even possible to depict feelings with numbers and "data" for instance? Statistical studies also have conclusions built into them, the pre-knowledge of the researcher and the way he conducts his research. Things should work like this: 1. Data gathered with the least possible influence of bias from data gathering. 2. Data analyzed to form theories. 3. More data either supports or works against theory. You can use case studies or whatever you want to form the data, though it's naturally not all equal. edit: That's really just the scientific method. My problem comes when people don't have data and so just claim their statement is true. Yeah but you have a false assumption that quantitative research gets "objective" results, which isn't true. There's no such thing as non-biased data. Like I said earlier, you think from a very conventional scientific standpoint, which is sometimes not possible when it comes to more complex and "human" things like feelings, thoughts etc. Whenever you measure something, you are making an assumption that the thing you're trying to measure actually fit's your idea of how it should be measured. Therefore there is a tendency to make data fit into your pre-thought out slots. And lol data, I could make a statistical connection about fact that I've gotten a headache 3 times when I've worn my blue shirt. But the headache doesn't have anything to do with my shirt at all, it's just a statistical coincidence. Don't put too much faith in your data. Data is data. How significant it is depends on how large the sample is and what other possible variables can influence the data. Lack of data is not an excuse for lower standards of what is considered true or false. If it's difficult to gather data in the social sciences, then deal with it and admit that conclusions of similar certainty to hard sciences are difficult to obtain rather than just lowering the standards.
You totally didn't get what I wrote in my last response because this is the same thing that you wrote earlier.
|
On May 18 2009 00:46 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 00:40 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:32 Foucault wrote:On May 18 2009 00:27 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:26 Foucault wrote:On May 18 2009 00:22 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:19 Jibba wrote:On May 18 2009 00:12 cz wrote:On May 18 2009 00:08 Foucault wrote:On May 17 2009 23:52 cz wrote:
[quote]
Personal observation and opinion. It's not a claim I'm really going to defend or stand by too much.
The difference is that I admit that. Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable. With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes. Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true. Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within. Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion. What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/IIprocess.shtml Sure, there is always bias in both. The thing is that statistical studies are data, whereas case studies tend to have inferences and conclusions built into them. Otherwise you just have a statistical study. Yea but try measuring feelings with numbers. Modern psychology tries to do this alot but how accurate is it really. Is it even possible to depict feelings with numbers and "data" for instance? Statistical studies also have conclusions built into them, the pre-knowledge of the researcher and the way he conducts his research. Things should work like this: 1. Data gathered with the least possible influence of bias from data gathering. 2. Data analyzed to form theories. 3. More data either supports or works against theory. You can use case studies or whatever you want to form the data, though it's naturally not all equal. edit: That's really just the scientific method. My problem comes when people don't have data and so just claim their statement is true. Yeah but you have a false assumption that quantitative research gets "objective" results, which isn't true. There's no such thing as non-biased data. Like I said earlier, you think from a very conventional scientific standpoint, which is sometimes not possible when it comes to more complex and "human" things like feelings, thoughts etc. Whenever you measure something, you are making an assumption that the thing you're trying to measure actually fit's your idea of how it should be measured. Therefore there is a tendency to make data fit into your pre-thought out slots. And lol data, I could make a statistical connection about fact that I've gotten a headache 3 times when I've worn my blue shirt. But the headache doesn't have anything to do with my shirt at all, it's just a statistical coincidence. Don't put too much faith in your data. Data is data. How significant it is depends on how large the sample is and what other possible variables can influence the data. Lack of data is not an excuse for lower standards of what is considered true or false. If it's difficult to gather data in the social sciences, then deal with it and admit that conclusions of similar certainty to hard sciences are difficult to obtain rather than just lowering the standards. You totally didn't get what I wrote in my last response because this is the same thing that you wrote earlier.
Yeah I know.
|
sry got to break off the discussion, other stuff to do now
|
|
|
On May 18 2009 00:27 cz wrote:
Things should work like this:
1. Data gathered with the least possible influence of bias from data gathering.
2. Data analyzed to form theories.
3. More data either supports or works against theory.
You can use case studies or whatever you want to form the data, though it's naturally not all equal.
edit: That's really just the scientific method. My problem comes when people don't have data and so just claim their statement is true, or their data is limited in scope and/or possible bias.
An example from the article in the OP is that people tend to pick protoss as their favorite race because it is masculine and/or represents the future of human civilization, or whatever the author said. No data, just a statement.
And what do you think happens in fields like psychology? A professor just sits down one day, decides he's going to reinvent the world and makes up a new theory out of thin air?
I haven't read the whole thread, but it sounds to me like you've read some bad publications (there are loads of those in social sciences and it's one of the problems the field has) and decided the whole field isn't scientific.
|
I'm going to guess the past 10 pages have been Internet White Knights trying to defend women in hopes one fucks them. Someone confirm this.
The rest of the posts are normal people going, "Lawl. Troll troll is troll," or, "lolwat? Has to be a joke."
How can people like this even exist? O_o;;
|
Michel Foucault was not a feminist, stop using him.
|
Bad Feminism is about the ugliest thing in existance. Stupid people having too much feelings...YUCK
There is good feminism in this world, and I would like to see some...it would sure be refreshing...
At first I thought the article would be about men playing too much Starcraft and not paying enough attention to women, but no.
|
oh great, someone finds a silly article and uses it to open a shit storm and drag feminists' name through the mud
lock thread zzz
|
On May 18 2009 03:18 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Michel Foucault was not a feminist, stop using him.
Who says he is?
|
On May 18 2009 03:01 NeO)MasCoT wrote:
I'm going to guess the past 10 pages have been Internet White Knights trying to defend women in hopes one fucks them. Someone confirm this.
I'm not even gonna comment on this, because this is just silly and you know it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
