Should the social sciences actually be called 'sciences'?

[Trakar]

And that makes it a non-science, how?

? I support that psychology is indeed, and properly, "Science."

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

? I support that psychology is indeed, and properly, "Science."

It sounded like you were saying why it wasn't a science. I'm glad to hear you weren't saying that.

"many experimental practices on humans are generally considered unethical, which severely limits to rigor"
​

 

[Trakar]

It sounded like you were saying why it wasn't a science. I'm glad to hear you weren't saying that.

"many experimental practices on humans are generally considered unethical, which severely limits to rigor"
​

The fact that we cannot ethically conduct certain types of experiments to limit variables and reproduce specific conditions and results leads to a bit of ambiguity in the process of hypothesis testing and theory construction for those particular areas of study, this isn't a flaw in science or practice, it is an admirable display of humanity. Also at distinction is the fact that I am not talking about all psychological testing and research merely a small sliver of human subject testing. That sliver is not required to validate the body of understanding that is the science of psychology.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The fact that we cannot ethically conduct certain types of experiments to limit variables and reproduce specific conditions and results leads to a bit of ambiguity in the process of hypothesis testing and theory construction for those particular areas of study, this isn't a flaw in science or practice, it is an admirable display of humanity. Also at distinction is the fact that I am not talking about all psychological testing and research merely a small sliver of human subject testing. That sliver is not required to validate the body of understanding that is the science of psychology.

There are other ways to study problems besides unethical trials. You merely need to design the studies differently.

 

[Trakar]

There are other ways to study problems besides unethical trials. You merely need to design the studies differently.

Not in all cases, but there is nothing amiss in there being some things that lack a very precise resolution because of the limitations of what you are willing to subject your test subjects to.

 

[macdoc]

SG

So you can use the scientific process to study the effect of geology on traffic patterns in a city surrounded by water necessitating bridges, but you can't factor in the geographical aspects of rush hour?

Using mathematics for analysis or even testing an hypothesis does not make a discipline a science.
Medicine is the prime example of heavy use of science without it being a physical science such as physics or chemistry but it relies very heavily on them.

Geography relies on geology as an underlying base in the same way. Geology is a physical science.
The minute you introduce humans into the picture you run into the same issues that prevent history and economic displines from being physical sciences.

Economics may use some mathematical procedures but it is not predictive the way adding heat and pressure to carbon to produce a diamond is.

There is nothing wrong with disciplines...they have a great deal to add to human knowledge and quality of life as medicine does....they are just not physcial sciences.

Even biology as a all encompassing term is questionable as a physical science tho it relies heavily on them.
Certain aspects are predictive ( genetics for instance ).
So I would classify genetics ( including DNA ) as a physical science due to it's predictive nature.

Computer science in the same way, astrophysics, cosmology, earth sciences...these are physical sciences with predictive power even tho some are poorly developed as to our understanding....ie aerodynamics...well based in physics, not entirely understood.

Nuclear physics, stellar physics all physical sciences, I'd include neural science in that as it is physically based in neurons which in turn are subject to laws of chemistry and physics.

Once a the human or animal brain is understood well enough to decode it's operating system so there is a solidly predictive aspect....then psychology say might move to a physical science.

This is not to demean any of the disciplines....but I just think there is this encroachment on science...economics notoriously ....that has the physical scientist rolling their eyes or rolling in their graves as the case may be.

I think even meteorology ( despite inherent difficulties with chaotic systems ) lays a better claim as a physical science than economics or psychology.

I think social sciences as a term lays too much claim - that rather they should be classed with history, geography, economics and others.

Social studies works for me as separate from physical sciences.

physical sciences
noun
the sciences concerned with the study of inanimate natural objects, including physics, chemistry, astronomy, and related subjects.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/physical_science

Biology is a natural science concerned with the study of life and living organisms, including their structure, function, growth, evolution, distribution, and taxonomy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology

Social sciences in my view is misleading.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

SG

Using mathematics for analysis or even testing an hypothesis does not make a discipline a science.

And you think I was referring to the math, why?

In my example, geological science would look at the limited roads in and out of the city due to the geology, and geography would be concerned with people's work and life patterns in the same city.

Medicine is the prime example of heavy use of science without it being a physical science such as physics or chemistry but it relies very heavily on them.

Geography relies on geology as an underlying base in the same way. Geology is a physical science.

Geology has zero to do with rush hour patterns.

The minute you introduce humans into the picture you run into the same issues that prevent history and economic displines from being physical sciences.

Economics may use some mathematical procedures but it is not predictive the way adding heat and pressure to carbon to produce a diamond is.

There is nothing wrong with disciplines...they have a great deal to add to human knowledge and quality of life as medicine does....they are just not physcial sciences.

Even biology as a all encompassing term is questionable as a physical science tho it relies heavily on them.
Certain aspects are predictive ( genetics for instance ).
So I would classify genetics ( including DNA ) as a physical science due to it's predictive nature.

Computer science in the same way, astrophysics, cosmology, earth sciences...these are physical sciences with predictive power even tho some are poorly developed as to our understanding....ie aerodynamics...well based in physics, not entirely understood.

Nuclear physics, stellar physics all physical sciences, I'd include neural science in that as it is physically based in neurons which in turn are subject to laws of chemistry and physics.

Once a the human or animal brain is understood well enough to decode it's operating system so there is a solidly predictive aspect....then psychology say might move to a physical science.

This is not to demean any of the disciplines....but I just think there is this encroachment on science...economics notoriously ....that has the physical scientist rolling their eyes or rolling in their graves as the case may be.

I think even meteorology ( despite inherent difficulties with chaotic systems ) lays a better claim as a physical science than economics or psychology.

I think social sciences as a term lays too much claim - that rather they should be classed with history, geography, economics and others.

Social studies works for me as separate from physical sciences.
Social sciences in my view is misleading.

I can only shake my head at this. You are dissing sciences that it would appear you don't understand how the scientific process is applied to those sciences.

I'm also not sure why you keep prefacing science with "physical" as if that makes other sciences not sciences.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Not in all cases, but there is nothing amiss in there being some things that lack a very precise resolution because of the limitations of what you are willing to subject your test subjects to.

So string theory isn't science because one cannot test the hypotheses that are generated?

What parts of quantum mechanics should we move out of the scientific realm?

Perhaps we are cross talking.

 

[Meed]

So string theory isn't science because one cannot test the hypotheses that are generated?

What parts of quantum mechanics should we move out of the scientific realm?

Perhaps we are cross talking.

Maybe I'm misreading, but I don't think Trakar has said that anything "isn't science".

 

[macdoc]

Go ahead shake your head if that's your only recourse SG - , might imbibe some sense then,

Argument from superior knowledge unspecified shows both a weakness of argument and an unwarranted arrogance. Sounds like certain AGW deniers.

You didn't even comprehend what I wrote.....you blather on about traffic patterns and geology and geography all bundled up in your "things as I know they are" worldview.

Consider the possibility that things are NOT as you would have them.

 

[macdoc]

SG

So string theory isn't science because one cannot test the hypotheses that are generated?

What parts of quantum mechanics should we move out of the scientific realm?

Again this black and white approach ...string theory and QM are both testable even if not immediately....one of the things that make them a theory in the first place. Perhaps you are not as well read as you think...

Scientists find a practical test for string theory - Phys.org
phys.org › Physics › General Physics
Jan 6, 2014 - String theory hopes to provide a bridge between two well-tested yet ... limits on possible violations of the equivalence principle by the planets, ...

http://phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-theory.html

and as for QM - not even going to grace that with a response as it's so glaringly wong.

I'll post it again since it doesn't seem to take.

physical science (plural physical sciences)

An encompassing term for the branches of natural science and science that study non-living systems, in contrast to the biological sciences.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/physical_science

I'd not be cautioning others on their understanding of science...or lack there of.

 

[Trakar]

Maybe I'm misreading, but I don't think Trakar has said that anything "isn't science".

I didn't think I was saying that anything "isn't science" either, oh well.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Go ahead shake your head if that's your only recourse SG - , might imbibe some sense then,

Argument from superior knowledge unspecified shows both a weakness of argument and an unwarranted arrogance. Sounds like certain AGW deniers.

You didn't even comprehend what I wrote.....you blather on about traffic patterns and geology and geography all bundled up in your "things as I know they are" worldview.

Consider the possibility that things are NOT as you would have them.

I comprehend just fine. You're not making an effort to understand how one can apply the scientific process to multifactorial problems, how one uses epidemiological evidence, how one uses matched controls, how one looks at the effect of various kinds of brain damage in research, etc.

I'm in a scientific field, it's evidence based, scientific process dependent. And people in this thread are proclaiming it's not a "physical science"? Huh? Do you not think the brain is physical? What do we run on, pixie dust? How the brain works, how people behave, even morals are based on the physical biological brain. Cultural interactions are predictable and researchable. It's not magical stuff.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't think I was saying that anything "isn't science" either, oh well.

Then what was your point? So called physical sciences have research limits. Some human research has limits. What's the point of your post?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

SG


Again this black and white approach ...string theory and QM are both testable even if not immediately....one of the things that make them a theory in the first place. Perhaps you are not as well read as you think...


http://phys.org/news/2014-01-scientists-theory.html

and as for QM - not even going to grace that with a response as it's so glaringly wong.

I'll post it again since it doesn't seem to take.



http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/physical_science

I'd not be cautioning others on their understanding of science...or lack there of.

What is it about human behavior you don't think is testable?

 

[jt512]

Actually, ethical constraints on direct experimentation with proper controls and variable limiting may well play a significant role in several of the issues raised in that study (to include replication issues, noisy data issues, and especially hypothesis testing issues). I'm not suggesting that stronger rigor is not desirable or possible, merely that many of the typical means of achieving such in other fields of science are very ethically problematic when it comes to many areas of human psychology.

If you got that that impression from our paper, we must not have written it very clearly.

 

[jt512]

You didn't even comprehend what I wrote

I comprehended what you wrote. I just have no idea why you wrote it. You argue that social sciences aren't physical sciences, which is obvious and completely misses the question: are the non-physical sciences, sciences?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

..the question: are the non-physical sciences, sciences?

D'uh. Of course they are.

This nonsense has come up before. What I don't understand is why anyone in this forum still doesn't get it.

 

[Sideroxylon]

We should also be careful not to fall into the trap that many creationists have prepared for us, and make too strict distinctions between sciences. I have often heard the claim that only stuff that can be reproduced in a lab can be science. Suddenly geology and astronomy are no longer sciences because you cannot wait for a million years to see if mountains really form as expected, and you cannot put a star into a lab to see if it evolves the way astronomers claim.

There is lab work that can be done in what creationists might distinguish as historical science as they hypothesise about the unobserved past. You can set up lab experiments to test a hypothesis about the formation conditions of observed geological phenomena by the use of heat and pressure and comparison with the experimental result. If I remember reading correctly, such an experiment was done in the years of geology as a fledgling science. In astronomy they have the advantage of being able to look into the past with distance, and or observe stars and other bodies at various stages of development as a means to falsifying or modifying hypotheses.

It's application of the scientific method to rigorous experiment that defines the hard sciences. While this can and is done with experimental philosophy it cannot be with human history or sociological hypotheses with the same rigor.

 

[Jodie]

I don't think of any of these disciplines as sciences. I'm not saying they completely lack validity but if you can't apply the scientific method to the discipline then it's not really a science. I say this because I don't think you can observe human behavior without bias which makes any hypothesis questionable IMO.