*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