|
What's your favorite science? (pg. 15)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| tubularbills |
| quote: | Originally posted by Ang ' ela_ie
I find no science interesting. In fact, Im changing my PhD to english. That will prove to be worthwhile. :gsmile: |
:wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: |
|
|
| eckmek |
But can you really differentiate between sociology and say physics due to the fact that physics can predict things and sociology can't? I mean, you can't really make that distinction can you, because physics can't predict everything with exact certainty either, so really the differentiation is not in the nature of the science, but the degree to which it can predict. What i mean is, couldn't one say that physics isn't essentially different from sociology in the way it predicts things, it just does so a bit more accurately, and it does so naturally, as the object of sociology (human behavior), doesn't remain constant the way the laws of physics do.
And what's this about history not being a science now? |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| anthropology |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by eckmek
But can you really differentiate between sociology and say physics due to the fact that physics can predict things and sociology can't? I mean, you can't really make that distinction can you, because physics can't predict everything with exact certainty either, so really the differentiation is not in the nature of the science, but the degree to which it can predict. What i mean is, couldn't one say that physics isn't essentially different from sociology in the way it predicts things, it just does so a bit more accurately, and it does so naturally, as the object of sociology (human behavior), doesn't remain constant the way the laws of physics do.
And what's this about history not being a science now? |
Science, at its heart, is the gathering of repeatable, empirical data to prove or disprove a hypothesis. You can gather data on any hypothesis you'd like, but unless it's quantitative and repeatable, it's not science. It's like creationism. I can say "God created the Earth" as my hypothesis. Then I can say my data is the bible or tingly feelings I have when I think about it. Neither of those data are empirical or repeatable. In Sociology, I can say this event has this impact on a society. However, I can't say every time this event takes place, this exact result will happen (we're not talking behavioral biology, but sociology, keep that in mind). It's not repeatable. It's true that there are some theories in the "hard" sciences that aren't perfect, but the basis of physics, biology, etc. are those "laws" or repeatable theories, not the fringe ideas that had yet to be fully codified. I don't know of any core laws of Sociology, although correct me if I'm wrong.
History is the study of the past. Where is the science in that? |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Also, defining science in terms of the so-called "scientific method" is completely absurd to me, and the only reason I seem to see it continue to happen is so that the so-called "hard" sciences can have a default response to make the claim that sociology, psychology, etc. are not really science.
I really, really hate that the public education system in the U.S. plays the "it's only science if it adheres to the scientific method" card so heavily with kids these days, because it only contributes to the perpetuation of dogmatic practices, and rarely inspires anyone to look beyond accepted scientific paradigms for what could be a more complete explanation for a phenomena than is already accepted.
Discoveries by Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein (among others) would never have happened if they just accepted the explanations of their contemporaries without question. It saddens me to no end that individuals going to school for a scientific education rarely seem to study the history and context of their own disciplines, and only seem concerned with teaching students how they should go about things in a manner that amounts to little more than continuing the work of who came before you. |
+1. Have you read Feyerabend, by the way?
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
All that babble, and in the end saying very little.
What I asked for was an example of a sociological hypothesis being falsified or proven by empirical evidence. But apparently it's exceedingly difficult to provide one, since I haven't seen any sociology-lovers do so yet.
 |
But I did provide you a (rather simple) scheme, right before that post... was there any flaw? :conf:
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Another thing, is there even any agreement among sociologists that there has been scientific progress of any kind within the field? And if there is some agreement about whether there has been progress, is there additional agreement about what specific findings or advances constitute that progress? |
Why, of course! I don't think any sociologist nowadays would subscribe to Comte's sociological naturalism anymore, or to an orthodox version of his positivism, for that matter. So, there you have a quite obvious progress in methodology.
As for the specific findings that led to this progress, you can most certainly guess that, as positivists tried to interpret the social world as the natural world, they realised it was like measuring fluids with a ruler. You can even do that, if you want, but it's a really clumsy way to do so. |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Science, at its heart, is the gathering of repeatable, empirical data to prove or disprove a hypothesis. You can gather data on any hypothesis you'd like, but unless it's quantitative and repeatable, it's not science. It's like creationism. I can say "God created the Earth" as my hypothesis. Then I can say my data is the bible or tingly feelings I have when I think about it. Neither of those data are empirical or repeatable. In Sociology, I can say this event has this impact on a society. However, I can't say every time this event takes place, this exact result will happen (we're not talking behavioral biology, but sociology, keep that in mind). It's not repeatable. It's true that there are some theories in the "hard" sciences that aren't perfect, but the basis of physics, biology, etc. are those "laws" or repeatable theories, not the fringe ideas that had yet to be fully codified. I don't know of any core laws of Sociology, although correct me if I'm wrong.
History is the study of the past. Where is the science in that? |
What would say about archaeology? |
|
|
| PETRAN |
| quote: | Originally posted by NeoPhono
Science, at its heart, is the gathering of repeatable, empirical data to prove or disprove a hypothesis. You can gather data on any hypothesis you'd like, but unless it's quantitative and repeatable, it's not science. It's like creationism. I can say "God created the Earth" as my hypothesis. Then I can say my data is the bible or tingly feelings I have when I think about it. Neither of those data are empirical or repeatable. In Sociology, I can say this event has this impact on a society. However, I can't say every time this event takes place, this exact result will happen (we're not talking behavioral biology, but sociology, keep that in mind). It's not repeatable. It's true that there are some theories in the "hard" sciences that aren't perfect, but the basis of physics, biology, etc. are those "laws" or repeatable theories, not the fringe ideas that had yet to be fully codified. I don't know of any core laws of Sociology, although correct me if I'm wrong.
History is the study of the past. Where is the science in that? |
What Laws does biology have? |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
+1. Have you read Feyerabend, by the way?
|
Had a whole class on him, Carl Hempel, and Kuhn last semester. One of the best courses I have ever taken.
:) |
|
|
| glass |
| I'm a big fan of any science that involves turning baby's into food:gsmile: |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by RJT
Had a whole class on him, Carl Hempel, and Kuhn last semester. One of the best courses I have ever taken.
:) |
Sounds awesome. Feyerabend's ~Against Method~ is among my favourite books ever, and Kuhn's ~Structure...~ was also an interesting read. Carl Hempel? I had never heard of him, though... what are his ideas like? |
|
|
| NeoPhono |
| quote: | Originally posted by PETRAN
What Laws does biology have? |
Biology is pretty broad, but if you break it up into smaller fragments, such as looking at bacteria, or physiology, that's where you start running into "laws." |
|
|
| RJT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Sounds awesome. Feyerabend's ~Against Method~ is among my favourite books ever, and Kuhn's ~Structure...~ was also an interesting read. Carl Hempel? I had never heard of him, though... what are his ideas like? |
Hempel is something of a self-hating modern empiricist. He expands a lot on the work of the Vienna Circle, and in reality is just concerned with logical validity of arguments and the notion that complete objectivity is an impossible pursuit.
I didn't care much for his writing style, but he none-the-less had some interesting things to say once you got through the dense nature of his writing.
You can probably track down a copy of this (click) for relatively cheap. Though it's dense, it's pretty short, and if you're interested in Feyerarbend's work it might provide an interesting contrast.
Also, if you can manage to track down a copy of this textbook:
http://www.stevens-tech.edu/press/pr/pr139.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=bp...num=1&ct=result
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Techn...n/dp/0801858690
...for a reasonable price, it's probably the best historical look at the progression of science and technology I have ever read. I guess one could call it a "Philosophy of Science" book, but in truth it's much more a history of science and it's impact on various societies from pre-history through the modern age.
I really think you'd like it, I still read passages from it regularly.
:) |
|
|
|
|
