the issue is the culture of the people in the position to write the papers

yup

the "real sciences" value citations, coherence, and predictability over the social impact

which is good because that means they are contributing to society by helping us all make predictable decisions in reality (absolutely invaluable in physics and chemistry)

humanities papers simply aren't useful enough to offset the energy the field takes

real science follows the Scientific method, which basically means:

"If you repeat how experiment X is ran, you will always get Y" every time

for example, a normal glass of drinking water will always boil at 100 degrees C

humanities and also medicine even isn't a science because theres no guarantee that your experiment on person A will have the same result as your experiment on person B

@Dr.Wol sorry, you're wrong.. water will not always boil at 100c.. it depends on atmospheric pressure... water can boil at room temperature in a vacuum

😛

aye and sociology can be considered real science in some cases, just not in ways that attribute to the entire planet like say, physics and bio

this is true, fair point, however, that follows the same scientific method of the experiment

in a vacuum it will always boil at room temperature

sociology isn't a science because it doesn't guarantee that under the same circumstances in an experiment the result will always be the same

neither does science

name one case

they dont set out to always achieve the same result, they try to reach different results, thus disproving theorems

*trying* to achieve the same result is pointless

thats not the definition of the scientific method

the scientific method yields that if you conduct the same experiment in the same conditions, it will always yield the same result

changing the experiment might let us learn things and improve on theories

but the point was that if you perform the exact same experiment, you'll get the exact same outcome

doing something the same way twice to get the same result is not science

i'm not saying that

doing something in two *different* ways to get the same result will yield a stronger hypothesis

this is true

so it follows that science is out to disprove results or cause & effect

no, science follows the scientific method

which is that experiment A will yield result A

changing the experiment will give you deeper understanding and knowledge, as you said

we use that to rule out wrong theories

but we need the scientific method to establish guaranteed results in experiments as a solid base

else its "just do a thing, random stuff will come out"

its the ruling out that is the scientific method, not the simple observation part

plays a part, but isnt the whole

Id say this is semantics but google is available whenever

i agree it is semantics, and it isn't the whole of what our knowledge is based on

the scientific method is for evaluating an objective proposition, not proving an entire theory

but scientific method is the observation part, because you then set a condition that is met every time

hence you can build knowledge on that

a lot of times your proposition and observations are too fuzzy to make a proper conclusion but still seem like a valid study

like the infamous 20% rape study

sociology is no less a science for getting different results with the same experiment than chemistry is *more* scientific for showing that boiling points remain the same at normal air pressure

that is exactly what defines it

its the nuance surrounding why and how that makes it science

not true

its observation and experimentation

ok then what is it

statistics

in sociology you put more work and effort proving and studying a correlation than in math / physics where you can go straight for causation and proofs

statistics has no inherent cause and effect associated, ever, so sociology cant be used to elucidate such things by your standards

the whole point of the scientific method is that it allows you to predict the outcome without having to repeat the experiment

If i know that in every situation, X is realised, i can take that into consideration

in sociology, X isn't 100% guaranteed to be realised, hence i can't guarantee it will apply every time

you can only make (albeit trustworthy at times) assumptions using sociology

it doesnt *allow* you to do so, replication is actually necessary

proving a correlation (but not causation) is still "scientific" and useful to society but you can't make concrete conclusions on the individual interactions that produce such a statistical correlation

it can be strengthened until disproven, same with sociological observations

psychology is mostly bare metal where you prove the individual interactions and inner workings of human behavior

replication is necessary for peer review to prove the experiment is valid

In a science, you can always repeat the same experiment and it will give the same results

in sociology you can't, hence its not a science

you can

you can not, if i perform a scientific experiment 100,000,000 times it will yield the same result nearly all 100,000,000 times

a sociology experiment has no guarantee for that

the science part of sociology is proving correlations, while less useful than breaking it down to the lowest level it is still useful

it's quite hard to ensure your study is proving a correlation for a wider group than the sample

there are more variables in sociology than you can name, its observations can in fact be strengthened with repitive experimentation, or disproven just like in any other science

yeah

different results are not of a 100% "lul disproven" nature in it

if different people with different biases come up with the same conclusions then you have a much better conclusion

either that or they are all making the same mistakes (which happens, but part of the science is fighting that and looking for places where your results can be skewed)

its not about disproving things, its about being able to predict the results

that same mistake would be observed and lead to new hypotheses, thats science

no, thats knowledge

google is free to use for everyone

we are arguing about the definition of science at this point

google also told me Hillary clinton would be president

yeah i mentioned it earlier, the scientific method's definition is free to view

my argument is that it doesn't matter and labeling anything science is pointless and is more of a buzzword used by people to make the other side look naive

what ping said

a lot of people forget about the hypothesis strengthening part, the problem today is when people read an article written by (((journalists))) on one study and claim it to be truth

"To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning"

TL;DR "correct"

I dont think you know what sociology is then, its behaviour science but with humans, its pretty broad

plenty of empirical points, measurable effects, specific principles in sociology

yes, but you can't make predictions on humans individuals within a group that will yield the same result 99% of the time

where does 99% come in I dont understand

you keep coming up with this, it used to be 100%

whats next 90%?

if you wan't 100% then go with psycology

99% because in any experiment you can accidentaly have a mistake, in theory its 100%

its pretty much the same value

90% cause and effect shows strong correlation with something missing

psychology isn't always useful if you are say, trying to convince lawmakers to implement policies that decrease crime

there are simpler experiements in behavior science that have more predictable results, complex ones less so

does .3333333 repeating = 1? 😄 😄 😄

you want to present broad correlations

correlation isn't causation and all that :p

yep

but psychology is a really tall mountain

and not everyone that makes important decisions can climb it

@LotheronPrime no it's simply equal to .333333 repeating

to put it simply with a medical example
If a person is sick and gets Medicine A

Medicine A cures 60% of the people
40% are unaffected

then medicine isn't a science because theres no guarantee that "giving a person medicine A" will cure him

i mean since nobody is dying then if you are making life and death decisions then you want to use the medicine

hopefully someone can come around and figure out why 40% are unaffected and filter them out of those qualified to take it

@ping, sorry .33333 repeating x 3.. as in 1/3 *3 and all that,nevermind

leerooooy

i'm more about the actual application in society than proving things concretely

and that figure out why 40% are unaffected is irrelevant, in modern medicine these sorts of random % of X happening is so common they even place it on the medicine "May cause unintended side effects"

chemistry / physics need to be absolutely perfect and concrete in order to help, which is why it's so strict

yes but thats what makes them sciences

getting a correlation wrong by 10% in sociology is usually not that big of a deal

yes, because its not following the scientific method