/sci/ - Science & Math

>>6229445
I dont know, that pic is pretty related.

>>6229451

If I could run as fast as Sonic, I wouldn't have to do sociology.

>>6229445
So why do scientists accept some theories and reject others? What social factors come into play here?

>>6229482

That depends on what you take as a "social" factor. If their colleagues all believe in a theory, they're likely to believe it as well. It's the same for experiments: harly anyone repeats them after they read about them in a journal, yet you take them as valid, at least for the time being.

But this is just trivial epistemology: If someone tells you about something, you usually believe it as long as it doesn't contradict any other beliefs of yours.

And I'm off for my Chinese class. I'll answer your questions later.

>>6229445
What's your opinion of philosophers of science, especially those who believe that science is highly dependent (methodologically and historically) on philosophy?
To what extent are their assertions substantiated by your studies?

>>6229588
>science is highly dependent on philosophy?

Get a load of this Starbucks employee.

>>6229650
>implying that I ask because I agree with them, rather than to affirm my incredulity

>>6229650
>thinking science and philosophy are seperate things

>>6229445
It not a science. `social sciences' are nothing to do with scientific endeavour. They are about categorizing human society and behaviours. stamp collecting in other words. Stop flattering yourself u r not a scientist. u r a parasitic turd.

>>6229588

Well, that depends on the respective philosophers, of course. There's a long tradition within the philosophy of science which is trying to fortify, in a way, science philosophically. Popper or the logical empiricists would be good examples. Often enough, however, they draw a picture of science that is quite oversimplified and missing the point of scientific enterprises. (For example, epistemology hardly matters in scientific practice, at least not in the way those philosophers suppose it does.)

"My" philosopher of science is Isabelle Stengers. Not necessarily because she has a close connection to people like Bruno Latour, but rather because she is able to explain the philosophical necessities for a theoretical system such as classical mechanics. And of course because she does not try to reduce science to social forces, rationality, objectivity, and so on. First of all, she's a brilliant historian of science.

>>6229673

I don't take any pride in the word "scientist" or "sociologists". Most sociologists would not accept my theoretical branch as a part of sociology, but I don't think that really matters. I'm just someone interested in scientists and their objects. If that isn't what you imagine to be science, fine with me. I'm not here to preach.

What do you think of Luce Irigaray?

>>6229588
>>6229715

And maybe to be more precise: scientists surely don't need philosophy for what they do. At least, they don't have to be philosophers. It's somewhat different, though, as soon as they have to reflect on or explain what they're doing. But that's true for every profession.

>>6229722
if it has not got proper maths attached its just not science period. and your type do preach, you meddle in society and get jobs as social workers and set policy for politicians.

>>6229723

I've never read her, so I should be careful with my judgements. I'm not a fan of (post-)structuralism in the Lacan/Derrida tradition; mostly because it always tends to reinvent language as an omnipotent metasystem that rules all of social life. And I don't think one can reduce science or society to gender struggle or power relations. That would just be a huge methodological and theoretical mistake.

>>6229731
>if it has not got proper maths attached its just not science period
Not OP, but this is obvious nonsense. The scientific method does not necessarily require mathematics. And much of social science obviously does have "proper maths" attached, which doesn't necessarily make it science either.

>>6229722
This woman is worth 1000 sociologists. She can do what they can (write essays argue about non difficult stuff), but prob only 1 in a thousand socologists can do what she does

>>6229739
Why do you think people do this though?

People seem to believe scientific truth is at the whim of the prejudices of scientists, and not something out there forced upon anyone who investigates it.

>>6229731

So what? That's like claiming Chinese is not a language because it does not use the Latin alphabeth. And I think you misunderstood the job specifications for social workers. I'm not going 'round talking to drug addicts and homeless people.

>>6229740
Most socologists (and biologists btw) think difficult maths is Bayesian Statistics and they generally get that VERY wrong. I have a friend who worked in MIL s/w with me years ago--- where stats are real and testable, look up Kalman filters---and he has a PhD in Biology now and he hates the way they abuse Bayesian inference.

What is the meaning of life?

>>6229747
>realising 'round is a contraction of around and needs an apostrophe
a/s/l?

>>6229747
What is your day job then?

>>6229747
(re: chinese != language) No that is a very bad analogy. Getting the wrong end of the stick in Bayesian inference is just crass stupidity

>>6229760
Anon claimed science wasn't science if it didn't use maths, so analogy is fine (not OP btw).

>>6229745

It would be great if truth would just force themseles upon the researchers. It would save them a lot of time and money. But it's not that easy: No matter if you're dealing with cultures of bacteria, rock samples, or neutrinos, you cannot force them to explain themselves to you. Most of the time, they do what they want, and they won't give you what you are searching for (just a bunch of negative or even nor results at all). So one cannot quite say that facts are speaking for themselves. And if you look for example at paleontology, most truths have a half life of ten years. It's not that easy to read the book of nature.

On the other hand, a lot of sociologists (and other people as well) believe in something called "the social" which they blame for our uniform behavior and the shape of everything that in one way or another was shaped by human practices. They go around claiming that religion, art, or economics are "all just social", so why stop at science? Unlike in other fields, they have serious problems at reducing science to social forces, since scientific objects and findings are quite hard. Try giving a "social" account of gravitation or maths, and you'll very likely fail

Well, I hope you know the sociology of /sci/ is not the sociology of science.

>>6229760

So you're publishing your papers in maths, right? You don't need any explanations and interpretations for your exquations? That would be quite interesting to read from a semiotic point of view.

>>6229773
Because in science the universe moderates the social.

I'm not claiming it is perfect, but any social truth at odds with the "actual " truth will not last if that truth is amenable to science.

And every scientist knows the current social truth of science is imperfect, and their job is its improvement.

>>6229774

I guess I've figured that out by now. Still, lots to learn here.

Oh, sorry, I just realized I should identify myself as OP.

>>6229756

25/m/germany

And I apologize for any spelling mistakes or grammatical flaws.

Maybe it's more of an anthropological question.

It's relatively common in popular culture to refer to the wolfpack hierachy ladder, alpha, beta, etc. when referring to humans, especially males. In the more subtle versions, the alpha male is not simply a big gorilla that can club you into submission and take your wife, but is more like a pillar of society, someone trusted to mediate conflict and caretake of the groups interests.

But where does this picture come from? I haven't been able to find a definitive treatment of the subject, either in wolves or humans. There's a lot of material about primates but i wouldn't know where to start.

>>6229786
I was complementing you on not making a mistake most English speakers make.

>>6229774
>>6229785

/sci/ is 80% angry high schoolers with social anxiety or aspergers

>>6229766

I'll qualify that:

Some science at a junior level might not need much mats. But sociology is mainly fluffy essays and conjecture.

Hairdressing and painting are skills. Socology is more like an academic art skill than real science.

>>6229786
You're 25 and still on 4chan? Hahaha, how sad.

>>6229783

I agree that the social truth of science - or rather the way we theorize and talk about science - is quite deficient in a lot of respects. But I would not demand of physicists, geologists, or mycologists that they find a better way of explaining themselves to their non-peers. That's not what they are paid for and most of them are not interested in it as well. I think that should be a job for philosophers or sociologists. And if they fail to provide an account of the sciences that matches the self-perception of (natural) scienteists, I guess they're not worth their money.

>>6229799
I reckon its about 10% high schoolers and they identify themselves by submitting their calculus homework, generally

>>6229802
I am 37 and on 4chan

>>6229790

I'd reccommend Shirley Strum, simply because she's the one whose work im most most familiar with. If I remember correctly, she had quite some interesting finding concerning hierrchy and alphas and how social relations are shaped withing baboon troops.

>>6229805
However, physicists, geologists, or mycologists are required to produce results in the real world. With socology the acid test, of can you get it done and make it work, is not present. You are bound to attract more no hopers and duffers to a subject where there is not 'reality' benchmark.

>>6229445

So you're a statistician who throws out hypothesis. I'm sorry you ain't a science, but there is highly technical aspects of your job.

Let me ask you a question; What is the difference between a hypothesis and a theory?

>>6229795

I was hoping that was the case, but I added some insurance.

>>6229802

Well, maybe. Still, not the worst place to spend your evenings.

>>6229805
I meant their social truth within their own social structures. Their shared scientific (so they claim) beliefs.

I was claiming these are different to the shared beliefs of, say, a religion, because the scientific method tests the shared beliefs of scientists against "reality" and discards them if necessary.

Which is why the ideas you pointed to in >>6229773, that it's "all just social" are so very opbviously wrong.

I don't understand why this isn't obvious, unless you don't believe in objective reality.

>>6229802
Dude, there are people who are in their 80's on 4chan.

>>6229811

Well, my benchmark is the opinion of the scientists whom I am researching. If they say that I write about them is bullshit, they're most certainly right. That's the judgement I have to subject to. And believe me, they're the last ones to be easily persuaded.

>>6229812
Most things are somewhat amenable to the scientific method, even if the result is "we just can't say".

Will science ever solve the hard problem of consciousness?

>>6229824
>scientists whom I am researching
What is your subject/thesis title?

>>6229808
You must be new here.

>>6229812

I know that "hypothesis" has a somewhat more precise definition in statistics, one of it's characteristis being that it can be falsified by testing. A theory I'd rather call a somewhat more abstract image of a research complex and that includes a lot of "smaller" hypotheses. It's not exactly a set of hypotheses, since, for example, you cannot claim the the set of hypotheses of early evolutionary theory is identical to those of recent evolutionary theory.

I could go on elaborating, but I guess I'd have to know if you're just trying to test me (in order to judge my scientific integrity) or if you want some philosophical knowledge on these two terms.

>>6229819
well put. sociology is in the realm of the subjective, and it borrows what it sees as grandiose terms from real science. It grabs the wrong end of the stick with statistics (baysian inference being the worst abused aspect) and tries to strut its stuff.

>>6229839
The usual distinction is a theory is a hypothesis (in the science, not statistics sense, though the two meaning obviously overlap) that has been tested by experiment or predictive power.

As well as the idea you mention of a theory being a complex of tested hypotheses.

>>6229819

Well, there's a long tradition in Western philosophy (starting with Descartes), saying that there is no access to objective reality. I think you can imagine how that gave rise to a bunch of philosophical and sociological theories which deny any significance of the natural world, at least for the mind and society. So there's that.

The other thing is that every signal, diagram, photo, chromatogram, statistic, or whatever scientific tool you use, needs someone to interprete it. Walk into a laboratory and you'll clearly see that. So not all of the work is done by what we call "objective reality". However, that does not mean that all the findings and truths are "only in the heads of scientists". A lot of sociologists don't understand that, since as students they are told that "the social" is completely independent from objective reality.

>>6229829

You mean explaining how thoughts arise by looking on hormones and neurons? I guess not, I think there is some kind of confusion going on there. I could explain that at length, but I don't know if that's interesting for you. Let me just note that there's more stuff going on in the brain than just billiard balls hitting each other. Bt I'm not planning to get involved in a mind vs matter debate here.

Why are you doing sociology of science? Was sociology of math too hard for you?

>>6229831

Well my current work is on the relation between nanomedicine and synthetical biology. My supervisor would like to have some kind of discourse analysis (simply because it's more useful for his research project), while I'd like to do more of a laboratory ethnography. I don't have a title yet, that's usually the last thing you add to your paper.

>>6229854
>interpret
Again, any interpretation can be tested by more science. Interpretations that can't be tested are not considered scientific, though scientists still make them, often with lots of publicity.

>>6229866

There's not much sociology of math around. And I guess one reason is that sociologists are indeed often repelled by maths and there is little they could rersearch in that field which would find the acceptance of sociologists who are not interested in the sciences. As for me, I'm simply more interested in animals and fossils, and maybe physical objects, so these are the fields I turn to.

>>6229866
>Mathematicians interacting socially
Lots to study there

>>6229877
Do you get much of the hostility from scientists typical of poster above?

>>6229873

True that. But who determines wether a test was successful or not? Or what the appropraite method of testing would be? I mean, there is no common yardstick in the beginning, and surely not one for all the branches of science. And for every question or problem, it will (at least partially) have to be erected anew. That does not mean it's arbitrary, only that it isn't given from the start or the objects themselves.

>>6229887

>Do you get much of the hostility from scientists typical of poster above?

Not really. As I said, I'm not proud being a sociologists (I don't even like sociology as whole that much) or a scientists (since I don't believe that science gets its merits by being a somewhat more glorious endeavour than any other practice or institution). I've been around Wikipedia long enough not be botherd anymore by trolling or insults. And I don't have to win 4chan's hearts; if I can only do something useful for the scientists I am working with, that's fine by me.

But still, I think it's interesting, because most of these accusations are really common. So as a sociologist (or any other person), it won't hurt to take them serious up to a certain point and to try to answer them without disqualifying the thought behind them. You have to keep in mind, most of the times, such claims are not put forward by hostility, but out of ignorance.