- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: When did social studies become a science?
Posted on 3/28/17 at 10:10 pm to buckeye_vol
Posted on 3/28/17 at 10:10 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
I just don't know your issue considering these sciences
Just me being more of a hard science person. It's late, but this did tickle my fancy as we used to say. I guess it is just a built-in bias I have towards automatically thinking "social engineering" when I see social science. My following statement is certainly not all encompassing to address such deep thoughts, "just consider myself as an independent thinker that has always questioned any attempts to force ways of looking at society upon me"...vs why so many allow this to happen to themselves.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 10:15 pm to larry289
quote:And hard science is superior, but some of the issues that social sciences are also important, even if they're harder to study.
Just me being more of a hard science person.
quote:That's more of the political use of the science.
"social engineering" when I see social science.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 10:59 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
statistical methods are actually derived from agricultural research,
Yup and psychometrics research was huge is the development of modern day statistics too.
In my experience psychology is much more well respected than sociology.
I know many psychology people who use advanced statistical methodology...not really any sociologist or anthropologist especially cultural.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 11:07 pm to gaetti15
quote:The problem with sociology is that the logic is often inductive, and hard to test using deduction, making it unfalsifiable.
In my experience psychology is much more well respected than sociology.
And unlike, say Marco economics, they often don't apply the mathematical proofs and/or statistical controls to study it.
That said, I don't think that describes the entire discipline, just too much of it.
This post was edited on 3/28/17 at 11:11 pm
Posted on 3/28/17 at 11:11 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
And hard science is superior, but some of the issues that social sciences are also important, even if they're harder to study.
I think superior is misused here, hard science is more testable but I am not sure it's superior.
With that said, Thomas Kuhn elevated it to a science with his very good book on science - structure of scientific revolutions. If this topic is interesting to you, read it. The whole paradigm shift concept came from it. Dr sark had taught a very good class on it at LSU.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 11:13 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:I have the book and he says some fairly "radical" things towards the end, especially regarding how truth may even depend on paradigm.
Thomas Kuhn elevated it to a science with his very good book on science - structure of scientific revolutions.
I know some scientific-minded people who dislike the book.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 11:18 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
I know some scientific-minded people who dislike the book.
It's very controversial, I think it's got a lot to it and you can see it play out very well in biology and physics.
However the social scientists LOVE it bc it elevates them. It's worth a read for sure, it's pretty short and not hard at all.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 11:19 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Then again, theoretical physicists aren't really running controlled experiments either
And we'll realize in 100 years that the theoretical physicists of the 2010's were laughably wrong about pretty much everything so that doesn't really bode well for "social scientists" who are currently spouting a bunch of wacky and biased bullshite in a race to see who can create the most disturbing gender identity.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 11:22 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:I don't agree with this premise in general, but it's hard to sent that the paradigm shifts don't (infrequently) happen.
I have the book and he says some fairly "radical" things towards the end, especially regarding how truth may even depend on paradigm.
Posted on 3/28/17 at 11:23 pm to LSUgrad08112
quote:What?
And we'll realize in 100 years that the theoretical physicists of the 2010's were laughably wrong about pretty much everything
quote:Those aren't really scientists. They aren't using the scientific method to study these things.
that doesn't really bode well for "social scientists" who are currently spouting a bunch of wacky and biased bull shite in a race to see who can create the most disturbing gender identity.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 6:57 am to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Social science cannot perform controlled experiments
Wrong.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 6:59 am to Hawkeye95
quote:
I think superior is misused here, hard science is more testable but I am not sure it's superior.
No. In the hard sciences, there is a stronger connection between concepts (i.e., the words we use to describe things) and their real-world referents (i.e., the things under observation).
In social sciences, the connection is weaker. Arguably, this fact makes social science more difficult than the hard sciences.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:06 am to GumboPot
quote:
Social science is the science of manipulating demographic data with statistics.
and more usually, cherry-picked random events/situations/misinformation.
as in the 'meals on wheels' thread
This post was edited on 3/29/17 at 7:07 am
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:12 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
cherry-picked random events
Just to be clear, the words "random" and "cherry-picked" mean opposite things in the context of social science.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:19 am to TxTiger82
quote:
Just to be clear, the words "random" and "cherry-picked" mean opposite things in the context of social science.
True - but that's the point. Many random events/situations arise, some supporting a theory and others either refuting it or irrelevant.
The social "scientists' cherry pick the ones that support whatever theory (political issue) they are pushing.
I speak only from the political viewpoint. No doubt there is good non-partisan analysis being performed that I am totally unaware of - and not particularly interested in. This is a political board - I interpret everything here in terms of current politics.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:29 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:I take issue with this. I am a "social scientist" or at least in my free time when I can get back to research. And I've never cherry picked things, at the detriment of the scientific process. And neither do my colleagues, many of whom are currently in academia.
The social "scientists' cherry pick the ones that support whatever theory (political issue) they are pushing.
In fact, the issue isn't that scientists are cherry picking science for political purposes, so much as the politicians and opportunists have politicized the science.
But people then take the politicalization and questions the integrity of the scientists, which is a misplaced criticism. It's what we see in the climate science.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 7:31 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
The social "scientists' cherry pick the ones that support whatever theory (political issue) they are pushing.
Yes, that does happen more often than it should. They call it a "case-study" and the problem is that conclusions can't necessarily be generalized to other cases.
As for your point about pushing a political agenda, I think that is more common in some fields (e.g., sociology) than others (e.g., political science).
I am personally in the social sciences -- my personal view is that I have to stand and deliver believable content in the classroom to both liberal and conservative students. I would never publish anything that undermines my ability to do that.
Not everyone shares that perspective, and the "activist academic" is becoming more and more common. It started in the humanities and it is creeping into social science.
Posted on 3/29/17 at 10:15 pm to TxTiger82
Psychology in studying mental health and the individual has lost out to psychiatry and medicine . When people have mental illness medicine is the way to treat it.
All psychologists do now is take surveys or polls and come up with findings of polls and surveys. They claim to be a science but in studying the individual they are not a science and in studying society their findings are useless.
All psychologists do now is take surveys or polls and come up with findings of polls and surveys. They claim to be a science but in studying the individual they are not a science and in studying society their findings are useless.
Posted on 3/30/17 at 12:45 am to Ralph_Wiggum
Social Studies is an umbrella term used in K-12 education and it includes History and the Social Sciences (Geography, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, Economics, and Political Science.) Would-be teachers in secondary education can earn a broadfield social studies certification or, in many states, can qualify for a History certification or one or more of the social sciences.
I was in charge of a social studies department in a large (3500 kids 9-12) suburban high school for 15 years. I had 30 teachers who taught courses under the social studies umbrella. We taught everything from History (US, World, and European)to Pol Sci to Econ to Geog to Psych and Socio.
I was in charge of a social studies department in a large (3500 kids 9-12) suburban high school for 15 years. I had 30 teachers who taught courses under the social studies umbrella. We taught everything from History (US, World, and European)to Pol Sci to Econ to Geog to Psych and Socio.
Posted on 3/30/17 at 1:17 am to TxTiger82
quote:
As for your point about pushing a political agenda, I think that is more common in some fields (e.g., sociology)
I would definitely include sociology. My two soc classes were basically propaganda.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News