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