Social "sciences" are dumb

[Anonymous No.15086664]

You can't attribute a cause to something you can't empirically verify. This is why there is so much disagreement among social "scientists" and why every other sociologist and historian has a different interpretation of events. A rock is always a rock, but sociology or psychology? Depends who you ask and whether their friends "peer reviewed" them or not. Literal schizo pseudoscience.

[Anonymous No.15086668]

Explain why factual knowledge requires peer review, i.e. someone else approving it ideologically??

[Anonymous No.15086674]

>>15086668
>someone else approving it ideologically
That's what I'm saying social science peer reviewing is.

[Autolycus No.15086681]

>>15086664
Are society and social conditions not empirically verifiable?

[Anonymous No.15086685]

>>15086681
Absolutely not. Only physical forces are acting upon my body as I type this post. Society doesn't exist. I only know about it as a concept because other people told me about it. But nobody can prove it exists.

[Autolycus No.15086718]

>>15086685
So there are no 'social' forces acting upon you as you read/write this post? Is your body not a society of enduring physical objects? Aren't any group of individual entities that act upon and respond to each other be in a 'social' relationship? Not to be semantic, I'm really just not sure what you mean by "society doesn't exist".

[Anonymous No.15086727]

>>15086718
>Is your body not a society
I'm going to kill myself because of this post. Word salad aside nothing you're talking about is objectively quantifiable and you'll have great difficulty explaining it to us I'll bet.

[Anonymous No.15086734]

"peer-reviewing" is such a stupid concept. one ideology driven scientist publishes his findings and then some other, similarly driven scientist agrees with him. and it's peer-reviewed so that means it's true!

[Autolycus No.15086763]

>>15086727
Well, that didn't clarify anything. We see packs of animals hang out and interact, which would be an impossibility without what we call a society. As I see it, observation of any two entities clearly evidences an objectively quantifiable existence of society or social fact..

[Anonymous No.15086788]

>>15086664
peer reviews has been a disaster for every known field, that shit is pure faggotry

[Anonymous No.15086791]

>>15086718
Not him, but how do you distinguish between "social forces"? If I do something a certain way, one observer can attribute it to the "social force" of fear, yet another might say it's laziness, while I myself claim to be motivated by rational self interest.
I might be willing to grant you that "social forces" exist, but that's not very substantial if we can't objectively identify and distinguish between them. And in the interim, any opportunistic party can push an interpretation that serves an agenda.

[Anonymous No.15086797]

>>15086734
No retard, it means it might be a meaningful discovery or not, its truth value comes from how well it stands against being falsified.

[Nobel laureate Carl (she/her, IQ 200+) No.15086814]

More evidence of social sciences being harder than STEM. The physics cuck fears whatever he can't put into simple equations. Only high IQ geniuses like myself can handle the complexity of society while remaining scientifically objective.

[Anonymous No.15086869]

>>15086664
Yes, the social sciences are peak midwit territory. They have no predictive power, they repeatedly fail attempts at replication, and they can be used to justify almost anything. Next to nothing in the social sciences can be tested through controlled experiments; it's all observational correlations, manipulated statistics, and p-hacking. There is a reason real scientists can get actual hoax nonsense published in social science journals.

[Anonymous No.15086887]

>>15086664
>You can't attribute a cause to something you can't empirically verify
Maybe you can't. Stay in the back of the pack while the rest of us push science forward.

[Anonymous No.15086942]

>>15086664
Experimental social sciences are brainlet territory, but social theory, history and (real) anthropology is the realm of some of the highest IQ thinkers of all time. Basically, qualitative approaches backed with empirical data and analysis is the best way to approach the 'human sciences'. A good example would be the historian Braudel who relies on a lot of geographical data.

[Autolycus No.15086966]

>>15086791
Thank you for engaging. I distinguish between social forces by their actuality and virtuality. The actuality is objective, not a matter of attribution: you acted, responding not to fear or laziness, nor merely rational self interest, but to the whole. The attributions of fear and laziness are virtual, having a reality but no actuality of their own: there is no direct 'act' of fear or laziness or self interest. I agree that the mere existence of "social forces" is not very substantial, but that has no baring on the evident fact. It seems OP is opportunistically denying social existence, and I'd be here for it if there were a coherent case.

For me, objectivity is foremost individual. I can know the consensus and theories, the reality, but find it abstract fantasy unless observable on the grounds of fundamental ontology. Note that my motivations are far more religious than scientific~

>This doctrine is the direct negation of the theory that religion is primarily a social fact. Social facts are of great importance to religion, because there is no such thing as absolutely independent existence. You cannot abstract society from man; most psychology is herd-psychology. But all collective emotions leave untouched the awful ultimate fact, which is the human being, consciously alone with itself, for its own sake.. Religion is what the individual does with his own solitariness. (Whitehead)

[Anonymous No.15087006]

>>15086966
>Whitehead
based and processpilled

[Anonymous No.15087031]

Without the social sciences STEM would still be in an archaic state of patriarchal cis-heteronormative whiteness. Only thanks to sociology and philosophy STEM departments nowadays begin to embrace the strength of diversity.

[Anonymous No.15087112]

>>15086718
Maybe they are but it is only an inference. Like does history actually objectively exist? I can't sense it like I can sense the table before me. The table is tangible. History is not. I'm not saying history is not worth studying. I'm just sick of people treating it like a hard science. And not just history but all the social sciences. Psychology is easily the worst. Talking of "causes" in something that can have no tangible causes has become so commonplace people don't even realize the error they are making.

What is the "cause" of the European Enlightenment? What is the "cause" of depression? Interesting questions to be sure but completely impossible to answer. Does the Enlightenment really exist outside of our concept of it, like the natural world does? Does depression really exist or is it just a name we've given to a certain emotional predisposition? If they are a priori, which in my opinion they are, then they are merely ideas and as such cannot be studied scientifically/causally. There must be another method to "study" them, for lack of a better word. It is a frustrating conclusion to arrive at.

[Anonymous No.15087303]

>>15086791
>if you can't measure it it isn't real
McNamara fallacy in action. I bet you think it was a good idea to send retards in Vietnam because you can't easily measure intelligence's impact on combat but you can measure number of soliders too

[Autolycus No.15087441]

>>15087112
Pardon my word salad~ 'Social forces' would be abstractions with some concrete outcomes. Does the tree which the table is made from 'actually' objectively exist? Yes, from seed to table. We can't sense all that has passed, but can sense the table before us. It is tangible. thus so is its history: all that growing, cutting, sanding, etc., has been co-created from the past into the present, i.e., made tangible in the present as an actual table. That seed was cause for tree, and tree was cause for table, are empirical observations. To avoid neglect, table is also cause for tree, the past given actuality by the present.

I think materialist psychology is okay, kind of a science of libidinal investment, with the unconscious regarded as an aggregate of productive processes of desire. I could say that deterritorialization from the Oedipus Complex is the 'cause' of schizophrenia, but the actual cause is that desire which deteritoralized the libido, i.e., they acted on a desire.

An important question is whether you consider abstractions to exist. I do as an ontological principle. "The reasons for things are always to be found in the composite natures of definite actual entities." It helps in distinguishing efficient causes(desire 'causing' act) and final causes(actual entities 'causing' themselves), while avoiding fallacies of misplaced concreteness.

[Anonymous No.15087459]

>>15086664
It's propaganda

[Anonymous No.15087475]

>>15086685
>absolutely not

Read Thomas Sowell, pseud.

[Autolycus No.15087519]

>>15087112
>>15087441
>"cause" of depression?
Diagnostics, but what is depression? Like I said the 'cause' of schizophrenia is libido deterritorialized from the Oedipus complex; the efficient cause is desire and final cause is the schizo-entity itself. Schizophrenia exists as concrete process, not merely a diagnostic abstraction, and this is a fine example of dealing with misplaced concreteness.
>Does the Enlightenment really exist
In natural science, nature is defined as that which is perceived through the senses. Can we perceive 'the Enlightenment' through the senses? In some ways sure, we can read about it. The Enlightenment is abstract, and we abstract from the natural world. But, do abstract entities exist in the same way concrete entities do? No.
>Does depression really exist
Psychological depression may be abstracted from chemical processes or emotional disposition. Actual depression does exist in the act of depressing, like we 'depress' the handle of a toaster to lower the bread. Our entire concept of depression is abstracted from this type of concrete act. It is the /action/ which is concrete, the "depression" is always abstract, thus a term like 'concrete depression' could be very confusing. I've found no effectuate 'depressive process' nor actual 'depress-entity'. That is, depression seems to have no ontological being to become depressed. We can be diagnosed with abstract depression or put in a hugbox with concrete depression, but there is no depressed Becoming.

[Anonymous No.15087557]

>>15086685
If society didn't exist and have verifiable effects on you, then you would not be speaking English. And nobodies 1st language would be determined by their geography.

[Anonymous No.15087559]

>>15086727
If there were no social forces acting on you, then you would not hold the opinions you currently hold. You would not really know or believe anything

[Anonymous No.15087580]

>>15086664
>ruthless peer reviews

[Anonymous No.15087581]

>>15086664
Social science is fine in principle. But it can't be researched effectively in today's society, which is largely run by Jews.

[Anonymous No.15087612]

>>15086797
>peer review
>falsified
lmao, threadly reminder every significant discovery was done before academia enacted peer review

[Anonymous No.15087635]

>>15087031
Don't group philosophy with the pozzed shit you mean, dumb cunt.

You probably have a very warped view of what its curriculum even is. The gender/race shit isn't part of it. Makes no sense wasting energy to try and demonstrate this to you, so let me just call you a cunt.

[Anonymous No.15087684]

>>15087635
Seethe, alt-right chud. Philosophy doesn't mean worshipping old white men like Aristotle or Kant anymore. Those rightfully aren't part of the curriculum anymore. The most important branches of philosophy nowadays are feminism (queer, trans, postcolonial), gender theory, critical whiteness theory, LGBTQIA+ history and African-American philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15087696]

>>15086814
>while remaining scientifically objective.
kek

[Anonymous No.15087718]

>>15087635
Philosophy is a retarded subject for useless pseuds. And you're responding to bait.

[Anonymous No.15087740]

>>15087718
Why? What's wrong with it?

[Anonymous No.15087845]

>>15087740
Every philosophical claim falls into 1 of 5 categories:

1. Pointless language games
>Look at my made up mathy-larpy definition of knowledge/morality/existence or whatever ambiguous natural language term. Oh no, it doesn't work because of trivial counterexample. Repeat ad nauseam.

2. Making up unfalsifiable nonsense without real world applications
>Platonic realm of ideas, noumena, thing-in-itself etc

3. Dogmatism
>You morally OUGHT to behave like this ... because you just have to, okay?

4. Outright anti-intellectualism and blatant falsehoods
>Science is le wrong, logic is le wrong, there is no truth, there are infinitely many genders etc

5. Trivialities hiding behind unnecessarily verbose language
>Everything is happening in a social, economic and cultural context? Wow, that's so deep, we need to write 1000 pages about it.

[Anonymous No.15087849]

>>15087845
>Dogmatism
>Outright anti-intellectualism and blatant falsehoods
>Pointless language games
Sounds like your post to me.

[Anonymous No.15088552]

>>15087845
>real world applications
demanding real world applications is the tell-tale sign of a brainlet. only a priori knowledge matters

[Anonymous No.15088649]

>>15087845
>Andrew Tate image
Opinion discarded

[Anonymous No.15088676]

>>15086664
Science doesn't exist according to your pic.

[Anonymous No.15088685]

>>15086664
modern science does some of the things on the right.

[Anonymous No.15090683]

>>15087635
so triggered by such a bait, holy shit

[Anonymous No.15090689]

>>15087849
Your post sounds like cope though

>>15088649
>Andrew Tate image
Looks like Bugatti image to me.

[Anonymous No.15090825]

>>15086685
Basic bitch reductionism. You need to read a book and stop being retarded.

[Anonymous No.15090841]

ITT: right-wing extremists from /pol/ trying to discredit social sciences because social sciences are woke. What they don't get is that being woke is not an ideology but merely the scientific consensus. It's based on empirical evidence. And the evidence says y'all look like pic related, chuds.