Author Topic: Fuck All Religions!  (Read 987 times)

Offline Baruch

Re: Fuck All Religions!
« Reply #30 on: February 10, 2019, 07:53:40 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Physical sciences are high science that is around our current level of exploration.  Social sciences are weak because the information giving out is not as solid or high leveled as physical science. However it is still science even though physical "Uber Nerd" scientists act very snobbish.

I'm a historian and it is a profession seen as a social science or mainly liberal art because assholes think history can't be scientific as we document and research the fuck out of everything.

Reductionists are like women supermodels ... they are anorexic to fit into the clothes, physical science is lacking in human interest (very nerdy).

I had to be physical science oriented the first 10 years of my working life.  Since then I have had to do data processing, but the arts are much more interesting, always have been.  I was into art and music as a child.  But I wanted to eat.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Sal1981

Re: Fuck All Religions!
« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2019, 12:23:21 PM »
I don't consider social sciences in the same vein I do physical sciences. The latter seems to me to be more rigorous and falsifiable, whereas in the former not so much.

In social sciences, to even get reliable results you have to do stuff like double- and triple-blind tests in many fields. This isn't even necessary in physical sciences, AFAIK, because you're doing physical measurements/experiments.

I also think that in stuff like psychology, tests are hard to pin down, because we have an incomplete understanding of the human brain and brains in general, and this is reflected  back in psychology research. This is different in neurology though and pharma, because it's sort of a mix of a social and physical science.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Re: Fuck All Religions!
« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2019, 01:01:13 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I don't consider social sciences in the same vein I do physical sciences. The latter seems to me to be more rigorous and falsifiable, whereas in the former not so much.

In social sciences, to even get reliable results you have to do stuff like double- and triple-blind tests in many fields. This isn't even necessary in physical sciences, AFAIK, because you're doing physical measurements/experiments.

I also think that in stuff like psychology, tests are hard to pin down, because we have an incomplete understanding of the human brain and brains in general, and this is reflected  back in psychology research. This is different in neurology though and pharma, because it's sort of a mix of a social and physical science.

It seems like you're suggesting that psychological research isn't reliable or useful. Just like with any other science, researchers go through great lengths to ensure that their data is means what they think it means, is free of bias, and accurately represents the population. People are, of course, unpredictable creatures. However, psychology deals with populations rather than individuals (usually), and finds patterns. Other researchers will then take the same research question, look at it from a different angle, and see if the previous data still holds up.

As an example, let's take one subject everyone considers themselves an expert on: Corporal punishment. We have decades of research on the subject, all conclusively showing that corporal punishment not only has zero positive outcomes, but has several negative ones. Children who are spanked are more likely to misbehave, which is the exact opposite result parents are typically trying to get from that form of punishment. But do parents consult psychological experts to ask them if they should spank their kids? Nope. They follow family tradition, they read self-help books from people who don't know WTF they're talking about, and they listen to religious leaders who tell them "spare the rod, spoil the child." There's one mother on Facebook, someone I met in church years ago, who recently posted that she spanked her daughter several times in one day, and the girl was still misbehaving. It never occurred to her to seek a different strategy. Honestly, any parents who still spank their kids in the year 2019, where this kind of information is easy to find on the internet, should be ashamed of themselves.

Another example is mental illness. Just...god damn. Every time there's a mass shooting, you see politicians on TV talking about mental illness, and how it's obviously the root cause of the problem. Do they ever televise an actual expert on mental illness, to ask them what they have to say? Nope. They're not interested in that. They just want to use the mentally ill as a scapegoat so they can avoid legitimate debate on gun control.
"Oh, wearisome condition of humanity,
Born under one law, to another bound;
Vainly begot, and yet forbidden vanity,
Created sick, commanded to be sound."
--Fulke Greville

Offline Baruch

Re: Fuck All Religions!
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2019, 01:18:51 PM »
Tests on live humans is expensive and difficult.  Experiments on whole societies are called ... totalitarianism.
πŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽŒπŽ€πŽπŽŽπŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€πŽŸπŽπŽœπŽœπŽŸπŽπŽ€πŽπŽ‰πŽ€πŽ€πŽšπŽ€
luu shalmaata luu balt’aata
May you be well, may you be healthy

Offline Hydra009

Re: Fuck All Religions!
« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2019, 01:25:54 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It seems like you're suggesting that psychological research isn't reliable or useful.
That's not usually what people are suggesting in delineating You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login and I strongly doubt Sal's claiming that.

The general (and possibly incorrect) perception is that "soft sciences" (psychology, sociology, political science, etc) exhibit less scientific rigor, less testable, less quantifiable, less able to perform controlled experiments, etc.  It's not usually meant as a complete dismissal of soft sciences, but a perception that hard sciences have a higher degree of testability, objectivity, and consensus than soft sciences.

For example, compare the consensus on whether or not global warming is real to whether spanking is harmful to a child's development or whether or not a nuclear family is an ideal family unit.  In social sciences, you're more likely to run into "Well, in ___ school of thought..." and "according to interviews and case studies..."  Much less certain, more hotly disputed answers.  Hence, this perception.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2019, 01:28:54 PM by Hydra009 »

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk