that is highly debatable. If you want to debate it I'd ask you start a new thread (feel free to quote my post if you want. I am willing to try to defend its content).
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Scientists on RF: sharing your expertise
- Thread starter Laika
- Start date
that is highly debatable. If you want to debate it I'd ask you start a new thread (feel free to quote my post if you want. I am willing to try to defend its content).
Orbit
I'm a planet
Your premise is indefensible except from a perspective of ignorance of the subject. A debate would be a waste of time as you are starting from false premises and don't have the background in philosophy of science or methodology to recognize that.
lovemuffin
τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ ἔρωτος
It's not necessarily perfect, but this article seems to provide a fairly good overview of topics from philosophy of social science, and deals with the comparison to the natural sciences at some length. The author is probably a bit more familiar with methods in political science and economics than sociology, judging from my skim.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Mine is in psychology, which I would argue should hold a position between "hard" and "soft" sciences. It does have strong overlapping into biology and neuro sciences (albeit if it's still at an early stage and we still have much to learn), and the effects of psychological issues can and often do effect physical health (such as how stress is a potent corrosive agent on the body). Yes, there is still a huge emphasis in Freud when you are learning the field (despite other sciences barely giving more than a subsection about "founders" who have been so thoroughly debunked and discredited), but yet through clinical side it works to create a healthy mind which can help to maintain a healthy body, and through the research side we have gathered evidence, often at the biological level, that has helped many to lead more productive lives and even give weight to social reform policies.
It's kind of like anthropology, which can have soft or hard approaches depending on what path the person follows (forensic and biological anthropology, for example, is very deeply rooted in both the hard and soft sides of science).
It's kind of like anthropology, which can have soft or hard approaches depending on what path the person follows (forensic and biological anthropology, for example, is very deeply rooted in both the hard and soft sides of science).
That is a lot of bad faith for a discussion barely three or four replies long between us. I can only assume it was meant for someone other than me and that this argument has been played out offline and I am unfortunate enough to have "put my foot in it". I will try to overlook this but don't expect me to respect your intellectual authority if you want to use it as a stick to beat others with by calling them ignorant. If you want to criticise my ideas, you are free to do so-but if you want to make it personal- don't expect me to take it. I don't need a PhD to recognise this is an insult but I am struggling to see how I have merited it.
Orbit
I'm a planet
It's not an insult it, is a statement of fact. The things you say this on matter show zero knowledge of the philosophy of science, epistemology, or methodology. How can I debate someone who doesn't understand the subject matter under debate? Where the person can't recognize what reductionism is? Your assertions are exactly what a layperson misunderstands both about the nature of science and the nature of social science. It wouldn't be a debate, it would be a series of tangents where I have to correct misconceptions about basic concepts.
MD
qualiaphile
Well, I think this ape has had enough of typing on a keypad for one day. I'll do you the courtesy of going back to eating my grapes, grooming my friends and playing on the tire swing, rather than throwing poop at you as it is sure to only affirm your belief in your genetic superiority.
I'll let you publish the results of this interaction with the general public for peer review as it is sure to amaze your colleagues that I was able to count to ten. after all, It would be a shame for anyone to believe that you had the capacity to educate someone like those who made a profession out of educating you. No doubt That would only devalue your degree in the marketplace by freely sharing your knowledge with others.
My apologies for assuming an education meant you were capable of recognising a willingness to Learn. Perhaps if your tutors had shown as little patience as you have shown me you could come and throw mud and climb trees with me outside. But I suppose I'll just have to take advantage of the benefits of not having a formal education with all the other primates.
Orbit
I'm a planet
Insulting an entire field of study is a willingness to learn? You have a strange perspective.
you realise that the stuff about ignoring the ethics over human experimentation and social engineering was a joke right? (I thought the evil laugh and the smiley was a big hint).
with that exception I am unsure what I have done that could have insulted you or "an entire field of study". It would help if you clarified what you mean in the event this is a misunderstanding and we can clear it up. You are welcome to an apology, an explanation or both if you show me where I have caused offence. it isn't obvious or intentional.
Really, insulting fields of study is my balliwick.
(There's a word I don't get to use every day.)
Example....
Economics isn't a real science.
It's below psychology & sociology.....unless it fully incorporates them.
That's not what I was taught. Who was teaching you this nonsense? Modern psychology is very much a science, presuming one is referencing the academic and scholarly studies and not pop psychology. Trouble is, the general public often fails to distinguish between the two.
Really... who was teaching you this stuff about modern sciences? Holistic (non-reductionist) approaches have been a standard for... well... since I started getting deeper education in biological sciences, honestly. Ecology as a discipline can't exist without holistic approaches, and neither can fields like environmental science or biological evolution. Or pretty much everything else in biology, when I sit down to think about it. That, and considering how prevalent interdisciplinary approaches are nowadays too, reductionism doesn't get you far on that either.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
We have quite a bit in common, you and I.
I've a BA in History and a BS in Management
I spend all of my free time studying Astrobiology (and playing softball...) and every elective I ever took was founded in Ecology or Biology (I was working on a BA in Psychology at one point, hoping to parlay that into animal psychology so I could work with Chimpanzees and study language and cognition - but family life derailed pretty much all of my dreams, so now I'm depressed, overweight, and don't know enough about anything to warrant posting my opinions on the internet...
Oh, wait...
That's not what I was taught. Who was teaching you this nonsense? Modern psychology is very much a science, presuming one is referencing the academic and scholarly studies and not pop psychology. Trouble is, the general public often fails to distinguish between the two.
Really... who was teaching you this stuff about modern sciences? Holistic (non-reductionist) approaches have been a standard for... well... since I started getting deeper education in biological sciences, honestly. Ecology as a discipline can't exist without holistic approaches, and neither can fields like environmental science or biological evolution. Or pretty much everything else in biology, when I sit down to think about it. That, and considering how prevalent interdisciplinary approaches are nowadays too, reductionism doesn't get you far on that either.
It's actually very common, even the OP equates hard science with things like physics and biology.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Astro-biology sounds interesting, I have done some amateur astronomy and seen some odd objects in the sky on occasion ( but no abductions yet! ).
I did quite a lot of psychology on my ( non-grad ) social work course, we also did sociology, law and secret mind control techniques.
Last edited:
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
Did you take the voodoo rituals seminar? It was a pre-requisite at the Family Support Council.Astro-biology sounds interesting, I have done some amateur astronomy and seen some odd objects in the sky on occasion ( but no abductions yet! ).
I did quite a lot of psychology on my ( non-grad ) social work course, we also did sociology, law and secret mind control techniques.
I consider it a science....a fascinating one.
I am a Postgraduate in Chemistry and MBA. In 2000, I dabbled in programming and got a Microsoft certified professional certificate signed by Bill Gates. Then things changed and I am on a forgetting spree now, but for the sake of the darned belly (and belly of family members) work as Geoscientist in an oil company.