Requesting input from social science buffs!

[sofiarune]

Hey guys. SkepticalEngineer (http://www.youtube.com/user/SkepticalEngineer) and I are considering doing a collaboration video on the rise of extremist Islam over the last 50-60 years and we're really interested in bouncing some ideas off of people who have knowledge of the social sciences. If that means you then please send me a pm so I can go over some details of the model we are proposing so we can get your input.

If you do send me a pm, please let me know if you would like me to keep any information completely confidential, otherwise it should be assumed I will be forwarding information to SkepticalEngineer as well since we'll more than likely be working together on this.

 

[Womble]

*twitches*

Social science is not science

*twitches some more*

 

[MRaverz]

*twitches*

Social science is not science

*twitches some more*

Ehh, not so sure there. A science is a method which uses the scientific method, and social sciences do just that.

 

[Giliell]

*twitches*

Social science is not science

*twitches some more*

Thank you for displaying so much ignorance and arrogance in so few words.

@Sofia
Sociology isn't my field, but Jen Peeples mentioned some very interesting statistics in the last AE show, if you write them maybe they'd mail you the sources

 

[Andiferous]

Well imagine the status of humanities, given such.

 

[Pulsar]

TheraminTrees might be able to help you, although he's more into psychology than sociology.

 

[FatStupidAmerican]

I am not a Social Science buff, but I do a lot of work with demographics, so if that helps you out let me know.

 

[sofiarune]

I'm about to send both of you (Giliell and FatStupidAmerican) the proposed model and I more than look forward to your input. Anyone else feel free to chip in and send me a pm. I'll send the model and I'll get your input.

 

[lrkun]

I'm about to send both of you (Giliell and FatStupidAmerican) the proposed model and I more than look forward to your input. Anyone else feel free to chip in and send me a pm. I'll send the model and I'll get your input.

I specialize on the law. Maybe I can help, even if it's just to critique the thing, assuming it's needed. >.<

 

[Womble]

*twitches*

Social science is not science

*twitches some more*

Thank you for displaying so much ignorance and arrogance in so few words.

Ummm.....yeah, cos i've clearly got no experience of both.

I have a BSc and a post grad qualification that involved writing social science essays. There is a clear and distinct difference between the writing requirements for those fields. Oh, it's fairly arrogant of you to assume that i was some how dissing social science as a lesser subject, it is quite simply not science and therefore not scientific. Now as asubject in it's own right it is invaluble, however, once again it isn't science. Especially given the encounter i had the other year when someone saying they were a science graduate was trying to tell me that the reason we have seasons is down to the distance between the earth and the sun and not the tilt of the planets axis of rotation, oh and later digging revealed that the person held an applied social science qualification.

 

[TheFearmonger]

I'm into social structures that are deviant from the norm, so I might could put in some stuff. Also, science or not , sounds like a cool video. Can't wait to see it! :mrgreen:

 

[Giliell]

Especially given the encounter i had the other year when someone saying they were a science graduate was trying to tell me that the reason we have seasons is down to the distance between the earth and the sun and not the tilt of the planets axis of rotation, oh and later digging revealed that the person held an applied social science qualification.

Now that was clearly a very scientific argument. You met somebody who was stupid and who was not really precise in stating their qualification and this somehow proves your point.
In that case, the fact that Michael Behe has a Phd in biology proves that biology isn't science. Or something like that.

Ummm.....yeah, cos i've clearly got no experience of both.

I have a BSc and a post grad qualification that involved writing social science essays. There is a clear and distinct difference between the writing requirements for those fields.

Yes, the method used in social science is a bit different from that used in natural science. Which doesn't mean that one of them gets the holy grail of science while the other one is unscientific. I have no idea how things were handled at the university you attended. I attended two different unversities in two different countries and there was "a clear and distinct difference between the writing requirements for those" universities.

Oh, and just for clarification, I'd like you to tell me which of the following is unscientific because it's a social science and whix is a natural science and therefore scientific: Archeology, paleontology, biology, medicine, psychology, sociology, pedagogy, history

@Sofia
I'll send you a pm soon

 

[Womble]

Especially given the encounter i had the other year when someone saying they were a science graduate was trying to tell me that the reason we have seasons is down to the distance between the earth and the sun and not the tilt of the planets axis of rotation, oh and later digging revealed that the person held an applied social science qualification.

Now that was clearly a very scientific argument. You met somebody who was stupid and who was not really precise in stating their qualification and this somehow proves your point.
In that case, the fact that Michael Behe has a Phd in biology proves that biology isn't science. Or something like that.

So Behe, a known liar and sham makes Biology not a science? His batshittery makes him no longer a biologist, the same way that people that might have degrees in geology yet still take the biblical literalist view point can no longer call themselves geologists.

Ummm.....yeah, cos i've clearly got no experience of both.

I have a BSc and a post grad qualification that involved writing social science essays. There is a clear and distinct difference between the writing requirements for those fields.

Yes, the method used in social science is a bit different from that used in natural science. Which doesn't mean that one of them gets the holy grail of science while the other one is unscientific. I have no idea how things were handled at the university you attended. I attended two different unversities in two different countries and there was "a clear and distinct difference between the writing requirements for those" universities.

Oh, and just for clarification, I'd like you to tell me which of the following is unscientific because it's a social science and whix is a natural science and therefore scientific: Archeology, paleontology, biology, medicine, psychology, sociology, pedagogy, history[/quote]

Archeology is an arts based subject
Paleontology is science, as is biology and medicine
Psychology is a on the border between science and social science
Sociology is social science
Pedagogy isn't a seperate subject, it's how you refer to someones approach to teaching
And history is an arts subject as well.

Before my undergrad uni gutted it's sciences the used to be seperate from social science and the like, but they've mashed them in together, my first post grad uni and the two i've just recently been doing some study with have social science seperate from science. So thats 4 universities i've got experience of, with the most recent ones having some fairly top notch reputations.

If you are trying to make out that it's from arrogance that i make this distinction then you need to correct your thinking, i'm not one for arrogance. I am simply pointing out the distinction between two branches of study, someone with a phd in social science is no less learned than someone with a phd in science, and i'm sure both people would have demonstrated their skills in their seperate fields to a comparable level, however their fields are seperate and require a certain subset of skills. Hence one being a sience (as it requires specific skills) and one being social science (and requiring different skills).

 

[TheFearmonger]

This is all very important to fight about I'm sure, and INCREDIBLY interesting, but on a lighter note: did you guys know it takes three and a half weeks to make a jelly bean? No shitting you! Honest to God truth!

 

[Giliell]

OK, maybe this whole dispute originates in a somewhat lose application or over rigid application of the word science.
Maybe we can agree that science ( and many languages make that disctinction, maybe it's really just language that gets in the way here) is the general term which splits then into the two branches of natural sciences and social sciences?

But nevertheless I'd like to answer certain points raised:

So Behe, a known liar and sham makes Biology not a science? His batshittery makes him no longer a biologist, the same way that people that might have degrees in geology yet still take the biblical literalist view point can no longer call themselves geologists.

So you agree that you cannot jump from the behaviour or ignorance of one person to a general conclusion?
I could give you examples of total honest ignorance of a biologist over biology, of the total failure of a physicist to apply basic physical laws and so on. None of those examples makes a point about the subject as such.

Archeology is an arts based subject
Paleontology is science, as is biology and medicine

So digging up dinosaur bones and reconstructing how they lived is science while digging up human bones and reconstructing how they lives is arts?

Psychology is a on the border between science and social science
Sociology is social science

So sociology is social science exept for those parts that are psychology and belong to natural science?
I find it hard to draw the line. BTW, psychology is considered part of medicine. Seems to me that there are many shades of grey here.

Pedagogy isn't a seperate subject, it's how you refer to someones approach to teaching

umph
You tell me that my university and many others are fraud? Because they offer degrees and even Phds in pedagogy. And I really mean pedagogy as such, not as part of your teaching degree (where you have pedagogy as well and it isn't much about your approach to teaching but about child developement, cognitive developement, social interaction and so on.)

And history is an arts subject as well.

Language clearly shapes your (and my) view of reality again. We put labels on the fields of study and then think that's the truth. Yep, we have to organize all those subjects somehow.

 

[Inferno]

And history is an arts subject as well.

Utterly and demonstrably false. I'm a historian, but don't take it from me, look this up.
We historians apply the same rigorous method that is the scientific method to look at evidence and construct theories. You might want to look at this channel in the near future, I'm told ( ) a video explaining the use of the scientific method in history will come up in the next two or so weeks. I won't go into the details, watch the video when it is uploaded but it's sufficient to say that your statement is complete bollocks.

 

[FatStupidAmerican]

This thread is hilarious.

 

[sofiarune]

Who knew requesting social scientists to drop me a line would turn into a debate about the scientific validity of social sciences themeslves.

 

[monitoradiation]

Who knew requesting social scientists to drop me a line would turn into a debate about the scientific validity of social sciences themeslves.

Indeed. I love digressions <3 they make the most interesting back-and-forths.

 

[Aught3]

Hmm, are you two just using different words to describe the same thing?

Womble calls the subjects 'science' and 'arts'.
Whereas Giliell calls them 'natural science' and 'social science'.

Other than the label, what exactly is the dispute?