How much faith do you have in science?

[youknowme]

There are numerous fields of science, but they all employ the same scientific method. In a nutshell the method is coming up with a hypothesis and then coming up with a way to test that hypothesis that others can replicate to get the same results.

The hard sciences, like chemistry and astronomy are far more exact than the soft sciences, like psychology and sociology, because the soft sciences are often measuring far more subjective data, such as 'happiness' or 'quality of life'. But that doesn't change the reality than any legitimate psychological study employs the scientific method of coming up with a hypothesis and then finding a means of testing that hypothesis so that others can replicate it and get the same results.

Significance testing, which is what we have been talking about in this thread, is not your traditional hypothesis, far from it. We are basically looking for evidence against something we already know is not true, so we can consider this evidence for the alternative which still has uncertainty and due to random variability results may vary if others try to replicate the study.

Also astronomy is suffering as well, due to the fact it is based in observational data.

 

[youknowme]

Pushing this narrative it somehow is just the social sciences that suffer, is simply not true, and it is counterproductive.

 

[Polymath257]

Sociology and psychology is not yet a science. So I don't care.

I'm going to second this with banners.

I was actually in a beginning psych class in college where a question on the first exam asked if psychology is a science. I answered correctly (it isn't) and, of course, was marked off. Funny, physics doesn't have to put a question like that on its exams.

Here's a simple test: when has *any* hypothesis made a prediction of a previously unknown phenomenon and subsequent observation or data collection verified that prediction to, say 2 decimal points of accuracy? if the answer is 'never', then you don't have a science.

 

[Polymath257]

Significance testing, which is what we have been talking about in this thread, is not your traditional hypothesis, far from it. We are basically looking for evidence against something we already know is not true, so we can consider this evidence for the alternative which still has uncertainty and due to random variability results may vary if others try to replicate the study.

Also astronomy is suffering as well, due to the fact it is based in observational data.

I'm curious where you see astronomy suffering, except in the abundance of data that needs to be processed. That seems like a treasure trove of new information that is very, very, very far from a subject that is 'suffering'.

In fact, it is observational data that is one fundamental requirement of a science to *be* a science.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Sociology and psychology is not yet a science.

Many who operate in the fields of the social sciences would disagree with that statement.

On what basis do you say that they are not sciences?

 

[Polymath257]

Many who operate in the fields of the social sciences would disagree with that statement.

On what basis do you say that they are not sciences?

See my post #63.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'm going to second this with banners.

I was actually in a beginning psych class in college where a question on the first exam asked if psychology is a science. I answered correctly (it isn't) and, of course, was marked off. Funny, physics doesn't have to put a question like that on its exams.

Here's a simple test: when has *any* hypothesis made a prediction of a previously unknown phenomenon and subsequent observation or data collection verified that prediction to, say 2 decimal points of accuracy? if the answer is 'never', then you don't have a science.

I'm curious; other than sounding like a nice if arbitrary line in the sand, how exactly was this definitional boundary for science/non-science arrived at?

 

[Augustus]

Here's a simple test: when has *any* hypothesis made a prediction of a previously unknown phenomenon and subsequent observation or data collection verified that prediction to, say 2 decimal points of accuracy? if the answer is 'never', then you don't have a science.

It is pretty hard to get a previously unknown phenomenon in psychology as most of the salient stuff has been 'unscientifically' identified via human experience.

 

[Polymath257]

It is pretty hard to get a previously unknown phenomenon in psychology as most of the salient stuff has been 'unscientifically' identified via human experience.

OK, then make a prediction (not of a previously made observation) that is verified to 2 decimal places by a subsequent observation. This should be trivial if you have a science.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm curious; other than sounding like a nice if arbitrary line in the sand, how exactly was this definitional boundary for science/non-science arrived at?

Well, 2 decimal places is pretty arbitrary, I admit. But it's a nice dividing line because pure nonsense can often get 1 decimal place.

But making a precise prediction that is subsequently verified by observation is the basic fundamental of being a science.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Well, 2 decimal places is pretty arbitrary, I admit. But it's a nice dividing line because pure nonsense can often get 1 decimal place.

But making a precise prediction that is subsequently verified by observation is the basic fundamental of being a science.

You do realize, of course, that making a precise prediction and subsequently NOT verifying it can also be quite fundamental of actual scientific work? Most work in the social sciences compare two or more different models of the phenomenon, in order to see if support is greater for one or another.

Perhaps the biggest problem in the social sciences is the lack of funding and other resources to be able collect enough data to make an adequate study...in biology, in individual psychology, in sociology, in medicine, dozens to hundreds of possibly influential variables can be identified, but most studies can only collect a limited amount of the needed data on a handful of variables...researchers find themselves using what data is available from some major social data collection projects

But that does not make psychology, sociology, etc., NOT SCIENCES...they have been called the 'soft' sciences as an acknowledgement that they just operate differently than the 'hard' sciences. Researchers in the social sciences us the 'same' broad models of the 'scientific method', although the exact methods differ.

frankly, by drawing an arbitrary line, you are reinforcing superiority complex of the physical sciences, in which studies can be constructed to limit the number of important variables to just a few and therefore get reliable results to six or more sigma, and the "physics envy" of the social sciences, where it is impossible get much beyond one or two sigma, at least with the amounts of money and resources allocated for such studies.

 

[Yerda]

Here's a simple test: when has *any* hypothesis made a prediction of a previously unknown phenomenon and subsequent observation or data collection verified that prediction to, say 2 decimal points of accuracy? if the answer is 'never', then you don't have a science.

If I make a prediction and my data or results disconfirm the prediction then you're saying I wasn't doing science?

 

[youknowme]

I'm curious where you see astronomy suffering, except in the abundance of data that needs to be processed. That seems like a treasure trove of new information that is very, very, very far from a subject that is 'suffering'.

In fact, it is observational data that is one fundamental requirement of a science to *be* a science.

When I say "observational data" I mean data that were collected outside a designed experiment, without random assignment. I don't mean "observed data" which is just what was observed and can be either from an observational study or an experiment. Experiments are needed to establish cause and effect, it is much hard to determine cause and effect in an observational study and to a significance degree it becomes subjective.

 

[youknowme]

I'm curious; other than sounding like a nice if arbitrary line in the sand, how exactly was this definitional boundary for science/non-science arrived at?

Here is an article on it, at least when concerning the p-value:

https://www.americanscientist.org/article/do-we-really-need-the-s-word

 

[Thief]

and they who know me well have heard me (post) repeatedly......

Cause and effect

Science...!!!!!!!
(as I point my finger to the ceiling)

God is the Cause
the universe (one word).....is the effect

 

[youknowme]

[. . .]

But making a precise prediction that is subsequently verified by observation is the basic fundamental of being a science.

The problem is that the world does often does not fit into our ideal situation, the world is a messy place. We use probability because it enables us to reach further than more "traditional" methods and yes, it has it limits, but it also has its advantages, advancements in medicine is a testament to that.

Statistical inferences carry a degree of uncertainty and they take training just to interpret; however, science cannot just abandon these methods, they are too valuable. We are just gonna have to deal with the fact that science is not always clear cut.

 

[sealchan]

We can't treat the social sciences in many contexts as equivalent to the "hard" sciences.

To put it simply, the "hard" sciences are more "labby" while the soft sciences are more "observational".

Looking at psychology which is a roughly 100 year old "science" we see that with the advent of computer technology, cognitive psychology has been able to tease this "observational" science into the laboratory.

The social sciences observe "systems" of natural phenomenon which much more highly complex. The outcomes of any given event in these systems are influenced by many factors which often cannot practically or theoretically or even morally be circumscribed in controlled conditions.

Use of statistics is a "compensation" for this lack of control which is more troubling in the social sciences when compared to the hard sciences.

 

[Thief]

We are just gonna have to deal with the fact that science is not always clear cut.

but does that decline the notion?.....cause and effect

 

[Polymath257]

If I make a prediction and my data or results disconfirm the prediction then you're saying I wasn't doing science?

If you can never make a verifiable prediction, you don't have an area of science.

 

[Yerda]

If you can never make a verifiable prediction, you don't have an area of science.

You've kinda side-stepped my question there.