The problem of SJWs

Page 102 of 108 [ 1723 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 ... 108 Next

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

01 Feb 2019, 10:08 am

kraftiekortie wrote:

... It's instructive to point out the difference between "soft" and "hard" science. And not really a digression from the topic.

Thank you.

I should amend my definition of Soft Science to include Philosophy as the 'softest' of the social sciences.

For any valid philosophy, there is another, equally valid and opposite philosophy. Any so-called 'science' that can include two opposing philosophies and declare them equally valid is about as 'soft' as it can be.

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

01 Feb 2019, 10:49 am

kraftiekortie wrote:

...It's instructive to point out the difference between "soft" and "hard" science.

No it isn't.

kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

01 Feb 2019, 10:50 am

Sure it is. Why not?

If I went by the results of "social science" studies, I'd still be a virgin at age 58.

XenoMind
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 684
Location: Absurdistan

01 Feb 2019, 12:26 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:

Not through the lens of "hard" science.

You and Fnord should read about experimental psychology, for instance.
Social sciences are full of quakery (more precise word for your "soft science"), that's true. However, that doesn't mean that hard science methods in these areas are impossible.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

01 Feb 2019, 2:37 pm

XenoMind wrote:

XFilesGeek wrote:

Not through the lens of "hard" science.

You and Fnord should read about experimental psychology, for instance.

I have. ExpPsych is a "harder" science than theoretical psychology, but it is still "softer than chemistry or physics.

XenoMind wrote:

Social sciences are full of quackery...

ALL of the sciences have had their share of "quacks" -- perpetual motion machines (physics), snake-oil tonics (biology & chemistry), astrology (astronomy), et cetera.

XenoMind wrote:

However, that doesn't mean that hard science methods in these areas are impossible.

Not impossible, perhaps, but difficult. Human behavior is only partly deterministic. A lot of it seems to involve random whims and urges that not even the person experiencing can explain.

Remember, these sciences are on a spectrum, and the terms 'soft' and 'hard' may not mean what you think they do.

XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

01 Feb 2019, 3:49 pm

^ Exactly.

_________________
"If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced."

-XFG (no longer a moderator)

XenoMind
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 684
Location: Absurdistan

01 Feb 2019, 3:57 pm

Fnord wrote:

ALL of the sciences have had their share of "quacks" -- perpetual motion machines (physics), snake-oil tonics (biology & chemistry), astrology (astronomy), et cetera.

Yup. That happens when science makes first baby steps.

Fnord wrote:

Not impossible, perhaps, but difficult.

XFilesGeek said that it's impossible. It's not. That's my point.

Fnord wrote:

Human behavior is only partly deterministic.

So is quantum physics.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

01 Feb 2019, 4:19 pm

XenoMind wrote:

Fnord wrote:

ALL of the sciences have had their share of "quacks" -- perpetual motion machines (physics), snake-oil tonics (biology & chemistry), astrology (astronomy), et cetera.

Yup. That happens when science makes first baby steps.

It's still happening. "Dietary Supplements" posing as cures and/or treatments for everything, Homeopathy, the "Bleach Cure" for autism, "Cold Fusion", an "Explosives Detector" sold to forces in Iraq that was nothing more than two bent wires with handles, and about a hundred other examples of junk science that can be found Here.

XenoMind wrote:

Fnord wrote:

Human behavior is only partly deterministic.

So is quantum physics.

Your point being ... ?

XenoMind
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 684
Location: Absurdistan

01 Feb 2019, 4:53 pm

Fnord wrote:

Most people in those quackeries aren't scientists at all. Just random folks that pretend that they have any degrees.

Fnord wrote:

Your point being ... ?

Partial determinism doesn't prevent science from being "hard".

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

01 Feb 2019, 6:16 pm

XenoMind wrote:

Most people in those quackeries aren't scientists at all. Just random folks that pretend that they have any degrees.

"Most" being the operative word. "Some" real scientists have turned quack. A recent example is an alleged cure for cancer that was announced by a scientist in the public media instead of a peer-review journal.

XenoMind wrote:

Partial determinism doesn't prevent science from being "hard".

Not in the strictest sense of the word.

"Hard" science involves experiments which are relatively easy to set up, use controlled variables, and enable objective measurements. Results of hard science experiments can be represented mathematically, and the same mathematical tools are used consistently to measure and calculate outcomes. The results of hard science experiments can be easily replicated, and the results objectively verified.

"Soft" sciences deal with intangibles and relate to the study of human and animal behaviors, interactions, thoughts, and feelings. Soft sciences apply the scientific method to such intangibles, but because of the nature of living beings, it is almost impossible to recreate a "soft science" experiment with exactitude. The results of soft science experiments are difficult to replicate, and are largely open to subjective interpretation.

XenoMind
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 684
Location: Absurdistan

01 Feb 2019, 9:31 pm

Fnord wrote:

"Hard" science involves experiments which are relatively easy to set up, use controlled variables, and enable objective measurements. Results of hard science experiments can be represented mathematically, and the same mathematical tools are used consistently to measure and calculate outcomes. The results of hard science experiments can be easily replicated, and the results objectively verified.

"Soft" sciences deal with intangibles and relate to the study of human and animal behaviors, interactions, thoughts, and feelings. Soft sciences apply the scientific method to such intangibles, but because of the nature of living beings, it is almost impossible to recreate a "soft science" experiment with exactitude. The results of soft science experiments are difficult to replicate, and are largely open to subjective interpretation.

By your definition, quantum physics is not "hard science". For instance, the experiments aren't easy to setup at all.

XFilesGeek
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Jul 2010
Age: 42
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,031
Location: The Oort Cloud

02 Feb 2019, 7:44 am

XenoMind wrote:

Fnord wrote:

ALL of the sciences have had their share of "quacks" -- perpetual motion machines (physics), snake-oil tonics (biology & chemistry), astrology (astronomy), et cetera.

Yup. That happens when science makes first baby steps.

Fnord wrote:

Not impossible, perhaps, but difficult.

XFilesGeek said that it's impossible. It's not. That's my point.

Fnord wrote:

Human behavior is only partly deterministic.

So is quantum physics.

Oh, I didn't exactly say it was "impossible."

But the idea that everything considered "masculine" or "feminine" is strictly physical and able to be measured and quantified is nonsense.

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

02 Feb 2019, 12:25 pm

XenoMind wrote:

Fnord wrote:

"Hard" science involves experiments which are relatively easy to set up, use controlled variables, and enable objective measurements. Results of hard science experiments can be represented mathematically, and the same mathematical tools are used consistently to measure and calculate outcomes. The results of hard science experiments can be easily replicated, and the results objectively verified. "Soft" sciences deal with intangibles and relate to the study of human and animal behaviors, interactions, thoughts, and feelings. Soft sciences apply the scientific method to such intangibles, but because of the nature of living beings, it is almost impossible to recreate a "soft science" experiment with exactitude. The results of soft science experiments are difficult to replicate, and are largely open to subjective interpretation.

By your definition, quantum physics is not "hard science". For instance, the experiments aren't easy to setup at all.

Really? That is YOUR interpretation, not mine.

Have you really never heard of the Double-Slit Experiment?

How about the LASER? Certainly, you've heard of the LASER, haven't you?

And what about Light-Emitting Diodes? LEDs and Quantum Dots are rapidly becoming the light-source of choice for residential and commercial applications.

The Photo-Electric Effect? It was the basis for Einstein's own research into quantum effects -- didn't you know this?

Vacuum tubes, transistors, tunnel diodes, the Schottky effect, shot noise ... don't you know any of these?

A real scientist would.

XenoMind
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 684
Location: Absurdistan

02 Feb 2019, 4:43 pm

XFilesGeek wrote:

Oh, I didn't exactly say it was "impossible."

That's what you wrote, literally:

Quote:

All these things can be analyzed, and are analyzed. :wink:

Not through the lens of "hard" science.

XenoMind
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 May 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 684
Location: Absurdistan

02 Feb 2019, 4:47 pm

Fnord wrote:

Really? That is YOUR interpretation, not mine.

It's your definition. You wrote, literally: ""Hard" science involves experiments which are relatively easy to set up"
Experiments in quantum physics are very, very far from "easy to setup". That's it.

Fnord wrote:

don't you know any of these?

I see that you know many scientific words, that's for sure.
I doubt that you really understand those words.

ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 38,088
Location: Long Island, New York

03 Feb 2019, 2:49 am

_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity.

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman

Page 102 of 108 [ 1723 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 ... 108 Next

Jump to:

The problem of SJWs Post Reply New Topic

The problem of SJWs