*they use fundamentally unscientific methodologies*
@Katze Miaulitzer Being the creator of something allows you to define your intention in creating it,
it does not mean you are omniscient regarding it.
well, why do you test our ruler
They just kinda figure out how to make the economy more the most effecient
Like Friedman
Someone who writes a sentence can determine unilaterely what he _meant_ saying it,
He can bring you into existence and yeet you out of it
but determining what he actually means is something else entirely, as people make mistakes
Especially people who fail at spelling "you"
_our ruler_
lmfao
I knew you were a troll.
what?
"well, why do you test our leader"
it is a correct sentence
We're discussing economics
not your submission complexes.
Go bother someone else.
well you lost your edge
@Green Syndicalism You cannot delineate "social science" from "science". It's like trying to delineate "car" from "vehicle".
Social science is a type of science.
plus I was calling you a troll and set up an example in which you were a troll
but the ENTIRE POINT of labelling a social science *is to delineate it from the normal sciences*
No,
it's to specify what kind of science it is.
if there was no need to delineate it
What you're saying is not making any sense.
*it wouldnt have the 'social" prefix*
_the ENTIRE POINT of labelling a car is is to delineate it from the normal vehicles_
yes
actually
... what the fuck is a "normal vehicle"?
It's to delineate it from the _other_ vehicles, neither can be called "normal"
we have different words used to delineate them from other similar concepts
Indeed.
thanks bud ;
"Social science" does not preclude "science".
It specifies a subdomain.
Exactly.
