Concerning soft sciences

[Anonymous No.9402657]

Is there a way to make them "harder"? Maybe develop some laws or unifying theories? Just so they seem less like bullshit? It just seems to me like you can produce any result you want by finding correlations between unrelated things or by other means in the soft sciences.

[Anonymous No.9402695]

>>9402657
While studying economics one of the first lessons is to accept the social aspect of it and the limitations this implies.

As I have been thought and how I see it is that it can´t even dream of becoming a hard science, the problem is we are part of the subject of study. One example I heard a lot was that in hard sciences the fact we know and apply something doesn´t change it: water boiling temperature remains the same whether we know it and take andvantage of it or not. Whereas in economic phenomena the outcome can be changed by our understanding of it. When economists found correlation between inflation and unemployement and passed that info on to policy makers the decision they made based on those models led to an outcome that wasn´t forseen on paper (high inflation and high unemployement).

There are some alternative and interesting approaches currently developing but none of them tries to put economics at the level of a hard science at all

[Anonymous No.9402720]

>>9402657
You probably don't even have an actual example of a social scientific conclusion that you find bullshit. In any case, if you found one, the method used wouldn't necessarily need to be made "more scientific" to be improved. Scientism is a misguided philosophy.

[Anonymous No.9402733]

>>9402657
>Is there a way to make them "harder"?
NO.
>Maybe develop some laws or unifying theories?
Unlike particles humans are not consistent or maybe it's better to think of them having a significantly larger number of variable properties compared to particles.

Sure they can be predicted in some situations like crowd simulation for designing safe building evacuation but that is fairly simple compared to the entire economic system of the world.

[Anonymous No.9402761]

>>9402657
cut public funding and let only the best study these

[Anonymous No.9402762]

>>9402657
>Develop some laws or unifying theories
That's exactly what they need to stop doing. Go read Nassim Taleb's Antifragile and Black Swan.

[Anonymous No.9403081]

>>9402657
>some brainlet will inevitably come in and claim that those dots are points

[Miniature Spacraft No.9403089]

>>9402720
>>9402657

Every "science" where humans are the object/subject is not science : psycho, economics, medicine, politics, etc.

However, they can use real science (biology/chemistry for medicine or psycho, maths for economics, etc.).

[http://i.4cdn.org/sci/15143175(...) No.9403102]

>>9403089

Why aren't they science?

Economics isn't necessarily the study of humans either.

[Anonymous No.9403110]

>>9402657
It's possible, but you'd have to give up the idea that your objects of study (individuals, societies, countries etc.) satisfy immutable "true" laws. Instead you'd describe them as processes that mutate the state of the world, and formalize laws that syntactically "represent" (more precisely: are isomorphic to) their observed "soft" behaviour. Church-Turing and all that.

[Anonymous No.9403117]

>>9403081
Brainlet here. Just to confirm, this IS possible, right?
Because I’m just about ready to spend the entire fucking day figuring this out.

[Anonymous No.9403124]

>>9402657
>>9403110

Take your pedophile comics back to >>>/a/.

[Anonymous No.9403129]

>>9403124

[Anonymous No.9403138]

>>9403102
Because /sci/fags insist on method over subject in determining scientificality.
Here the claim is that the scientific method cannot be purely applied to the social "sciences".

[Anonymous No.9403146]

>>9402695
seems the less you know the better when it comes to social sciences. maybe economists should quit their jobs

[Anonymous No.9403881]

>>9403138
then it's not science as

[Anonymous No.9403943]

>>9402657
Easy as fuck

[Anonymous No.9403969]

>>9403943

[Anonymous No.9404288]

>>9402657
?

[Anonymous No.9404308]

>>9402657
you dummy!
all i had to do is use big lines.

[Anonymous No.9404311]

>>9403969

[Anonymous No.9404366]

>>9404308
You didn't even visibly drew five of them.

[Anonymous No.9404380]

>>9403943
That's 6.

[Anonymous No.9404396]

[Anonymous No.9404452]

EZ
Think outside the borders

[Anonymous No.9404465]

>>9404452
you didnt end where you started dumb dumb

[Anonymous No.9404467]

>>9404465
I did

[Anonymous No.9404479]

>>9404467
No you didn'ted not

[Anonymous No.9404482]

>>9404467
please, number each line in the order you draw them in and show me how the fuck you end up in the same place as you started

[Anonymous No.9404493]

>>9403943
>>9404380
6 or a lifted pencil

[Anonymous No.9404804]

>>9402720
Provide an actual example of a social scientific conclusion that isn't bullshit. There was a social science paper on /b/ not long ago that had fucking political proclamations in the abstract, and was overall devoid of anything legitimate.

[Anonymous No.9404812]

I remember the solution to this being on Cyber-chase as a kid fuck
I think at one point you have to make a line extend outside the box one "space", do a 45 degree angle and come back

[Anonymous No.9404957]

>>9404804
Clifford Geertz said that the Balinese cock fight was a reflection of Balinese manhood.

[Anonymous No.9405019]

[Anonymous No.9405028]

ANY ANON WHO CAN DECODE THE SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE WILL GET 3 BITCOINS

I AM NOT JOKING.

[Anonymous No.9405059]

>>9405028
Some doodles show up when you ramp up the contrast.
Is that a square root sign or something?
I guess for the rest of the message I'd have to follow the lines you made and check if the sequence of the dots can be decoded or something but this is a clusterfuck and you've drawn it so carelessly it can be interpreted in any number of ways.

[Anonymous No.9405063]

>>9405059
You're on the right track though, there's a specific order to the doodles in there.

Hint: They're letters drawn with sharp angles, no curves.

[Anonymous No.9405066]

>>9405028
Jews did it.
Give me my prize.

[Anonymous No.9405067]

>>9405066
Try again, anon-kun.

[Anonymous No.9405086]

>>9405028
>>9405059
>>9405063
??

[Anonymous No.9405096]

>>9405059
Not sure if a 180°ed sigma or a 90°ed 9. Also the tiny dot in the middle, too small to even be read unless it's really just a dot
.

[Anonymous No.9405100]

>>9405086
oooooh you're getting close.

[Anonymous No.9405103]

>>9405086
Also, again, still no square root sign.

[Anonymous No.9405112]

Srdg?
Strategic Research Development Grant?

[Anonymous No.9405114]

>>9405112
Not an acronym either.

[Anonymous No.9405132]

the idea that particles vs consciousness (and science vs soft science by proxy) are completely separate concepts, is a nomenclature absurdity that exists only for the sake of human classification and granularity.

I claim that it is abstractly absurd to taxify concepts such as these in general, as such categorical idealization places needless boundaries on things that encompass both drab factual data with knowledge that is built atop such data.

I don't purport to deny or call into question the agreed classification itself -- i'm saying that the distinction between these concepts is in our heads, hard sciences and soft sciences encompass the notion of knowledege - hard factual testable measurable data or not - yes i know that's the defining line, but just because there is testable method and data lacking, shouldn't make something less of a science

[Anonymous No.9405137]

I can't find any vowels, but fromt he letters I found so far, b r d g s the only word that fits is "Bridges"

[Anonymous No.9405140]

>>9405137
>>9405028
>>9405059
Or maybe just riges, otherwise the rotated 9 would have to be used for both b and g.

[Anonymous No.9405146]

>>9405140
ridges*

[Anonymous No.9405151]

>>9404380
>>9404493
doesn't say it's not allowed to stop a line early and finish it later

[Anonymous No.9405164]

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=integrate+r+dg
>>9405086

[Anonymous No.9405167]

>>9405137
Alright, I'm gonna feel bad if you waste too much of your time on a silly meme I whipped up out of boredom.

The answer is "Send Nudes".

[Anonymous No.9405170]

>>9405167
where's the u?

[Anonymous No.9405173]

>>9405170
It's that sharp-angled bowl shape in the middle, which I realized is too wide to be interpreted as a "u" only after I made the edit.

[Anonymous No.9405174]

>>9405167
I'm a fucking brainlet. I did consider the rotated 9 to be "e", but then I was like, "wait, no, no way it can be mirrored"

I deserve to fucking die.

[Anonymous No.9405179]

>>9405174
>I deserve to fucking die.
Sheesh, anon, it was just a dumb scribble anyway.

[Anonymous No.9405181]

>>9405167
Also >waste too much time
3 bitcoin would make this worthwhile even if it took me a week.

[Anonymous No.9405184]

>>9405181
I was honestly thinking the answers would be more along the lines of this >>9405066
Had no idea someone would actually take it seriously.