Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Social Science's Are Not A Science! Watch

    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey)
    One with plenty of sausage
    plenty of.. what.. I dont even... are you flirting with me?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey)
    Im not lesbian love, jog on.
    You can't afford to be picky.

    I'll find you a nice hermaphrodite from Asia or something, dw.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I don't like the term Social Science either. As some universities do, I would always include them in the Arts faculty but I can see how that might seem very old fashioned to some.

    Although 'Social Sciences' smacks of wishy washy 1960s arts speak its origins lie with the Victorians to some extent.

    Before then divisions between subjects were less rigid. For a long time, nearly every subject came under the banner of 'Philosophy' before part of that split in to various sciences and arts. 'English' wasn't a subject until the turn of the 20th century. Obviously philosophical and classical texts would always have been studied before then but not something as populist as Victorian gothic novels and the like. Sad that our most respected universities, some of whom have since embraced the study on film, still have a blanket disrespect towards popular music and videogames as an art form.

    Sociology seems to me be a general arts degree composed of various other bits - history, politics, psychology, economics. So why not study those separate strands as separate subjects?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moonymeen)
    It's true that Psychology is nearing to a more scientific approach, in using scientific methods, technology, and with its practical application.
    Yeah, we are, and it's a load of **** yoghurt. Everything always has to be 'cognitive this' or 'behavioural that'. You can't just have an abstract outline an experiment and tell you what the results and conclusions are, it has to spend half the time going over whatever scientifical sounding model it can shoehorn it into; or hell just doesn't mention the results or conclusions whatsoever and just says 'the results relate to cognitive model X!'.

    Just like economics, we're getting physics envy. Sometime during the last couple of decades, economists got tired of seeing the hard sciences strut around with their giant intellectual wangs; laughing at the social scientists with their lack of algebra.

    To make up for their perceived shortcomings, they started to pump their courses full of as much mathematics as possible, streamlining any kinks out of their models with bizzare assumptions just so they could make their models just a little bit more complex and precise. It worked! Economics became one of the most marketable degrees it is possible to do.

    And now, thanks to the wonders of modern portfolio theory and a million econ grads dressing up insurance policies on the payments of insurance policies on the payments of insurance policies on the payments of insurance policies on the payments of insurance policies on the payments of insurance policies on the payments of insurance policies on the payments of crappy housing bonds consisting of equity free second mortgages owned by house flipping maids with mathematical chicanery and salesmanship that would make a used car salesman blush, we have an economic slump.

    Psychology is getting the same physics envy. Case studies and interviews aren't quantifiable enough. Everything has to be 'cognitive' or 'behavioural' or best of all 'behavioural economics'. I'd prefer to actually find out useful things about human psychology and report them in ways that even a daily mail science journalist could understand than come up with a bunch of useless **** sweat to prove how amazingly ****ing clever we are.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kultist)

    Just like economics, we're getting physics envy. Sometime during the last couple of decades, economists got tired of seeing the hard sciences strut around with their giant intellectual wangs; laughing at the social scientists with their lack of algebra.

    To make up for their perceived shortcomings, they started to pump their courses full of as much mathematics as possible, streamlining any kinks out of their models with bizzare assumptions just so they could make their models just a little bit more complex and precise. It worked! Economics became one of the most marketable degrees it is possible to do.

    And now, thanks to the wonders of modern portfolio theory and a million econ grads dressing up insurance policies on the payments of insurance policies on the payments of insurance policies on the payments of insurance policies on the payments of insurance policies on the payments of insurance policies on the payments of insurance policies on the payments of crappy housing bonds consisting of equity free second mortgages owned by house flipping maids with mathematical chicanery and salesmanship that would make a used car salesman blush, we have an economic slump.
    RIP Paul Samuelson.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OP,you know what ? I have studied "real" science, i.e maths and physics and do not give a rats's azz whether they are or not.

    Why do you feel the need to belittle guys that study social sciences ?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Picnic1)
    Sociology seems to me be a general arts degree composed of various other bits - history, politics, psychology, economics. So why not study those separate strands as separate subjects?
    Because Sociology is about a lot more than just those things?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Would you like some more cheese with your whine?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    Because Sociology is about a lot more than just those things?
    Can you tell me what it does that those subjects couldn't do either on their own or working with each other?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey)
    Seriously, Psychology and sociology are not a science, standing around outside Mcdonalds with a clip board asking about dreams is so unscientific.
    The only reason psychology isn't classed as a science is because it doesn't have one dominant paradigm, technically it is classed as a pre science. However, because it has many different paradigms it could be classed as post science. :p:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Picnic1)
    Sociology seems to me be a general arts degree composed of various other bits - history, politics, psychology, economics. So why not study those separate strands as separate subjects?
    Economics is applied psychology with added maths. Politics is if anything, a subset of sociology. History is record keeping with arguments. Psychology wants to grow up to be biology.

    Sociology isnae an acceptable target any more than any other social science.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Picnic1)
    Can you tell me what it does that those subjects couldn't do either on their own or working with each other?
    None of those subjects actually study society, so it's already doing something that those subjects don't do on their own or working with each other. English Literature makes uses of all the same disciplines, but I doubt you would argue it shouldn't be a subset of the others.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    They aren't exact sciences in the same way that biology chemistry and physics are I agree. But there is much more to it than just "standing outside Mcdonalds asking people about dreams." That's an extremely sweeping statement, and implies that all social science students do is hang around basically doing nothing, which is untrue. I'm studying for a degree in Psychology and there is alot of Neurobiology, Laboratory testing and statistical analysis involved.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Stupidest thread title ever (including ridiculous misspelling).

    Of course they are not NATURAL sciences, they are social sciences.. applying scientific techniques to fields outside of natural science. Whether that be techniques of the same form as those used for natural sciences, or earlier understandings of science. To try and put them in the same bracket as natural sciences is ridiculous as the name is a pretty clear signifier for them not being. To argue they aren't sciences because they do not use scientific methods is misinformed and shows a lack of understanding about the meaning and history of the term 'science'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oh my Ms. Coffey)
    Seriously, Psychology and sociology are not a science, standing around outside Mcdonalds with a clip board asking about dreams is so unscientific.
    I take it you're not studying Psychology then? Haha.

    Get a brain cell
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Ignoring the trolling...

    It depends on your definition of 'science'. A general example - a sociologist may use scientific methods to study social phenomena. Does that not make his study of sociology 'scientific'?


    (Original post by Colour Me Pretty)
    The only reason psychology isn't classed as a science is because it doesn't have one dominant paradigm, technically it is classed as a pre science. However, because it has many different paradigms it could be classed as post science. :p:
    You totally study AQA Psychology, don't you? :mmm:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retrospect)
    Ignoring the trolling...

    It depends on your definition of 'science'. A general example - a sociologist may use scientific methods to study social phenomena. Does that not make his study of sociology 'scientific'?




    You totally study AQA Psychology, don't you? :mmm:
    Not may, they will certainly, whether that is a positivist or classical interpretation of the word!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by candytreeman)
    Not may, they will certainly, whether that is a positivist or classical interpretation of the word!
    Lol, I know. I was representing the example as a hypothetical situation because the OP sounds rather dumb. :teehee:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retrospect)
    Lol, I know. I was representing the example as a hypothetical situation because the OP sounds rather dumb. :teehee:
    I know, I just wanted to emphasize how right you are
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Succesful troll is succesful also :sexface: for Susan Coffey
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.