Social Sciences - Are they real science?

[nosos]

Could the diference be that in the exact sciences the limits of the theories are well defined??

Sociological positivism defines the limits of theories far more than any methodological framework within the natural sciences could possibly hope to - yet, one could argue, this is precisely what makes it so unscientific.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociological_positivism

 

[nosos]

By that standard, biology/ecology may not count as an exact science.

Certainly that would seem to be true of ecology, though I'm less sure of biology (particularly relative to the social sciences). However it not being (rather than counting) an exact science doesn't really count against it. It's just a fact about the domain of inquiry of the discipline.

 

[Crispy]

..but describing a situation requires making theoretical assumptions and in applying a theory in social sciences you can't necessarily show complete workings like in an exact science, so how can you know what theory they are actually using to analyse a situation?

I think you're on to something here. You can have two hypotheses to explain a phenomena in the social sciences, and either could be taken as correct. The evidence itself can be so vague, that a very large number of hypotheses could be constructed. But there's no consistent or reliable way of deciding which hypothesis is most correct. Whereas in the physical sciences, it's usually possible to measure precisely which hypothesis fits the data the best.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

My two cents on the topic:

The softer sciences are still at the alchemy stage right now. Eventually they might be quantifiable in some manner as the hard sciences are. Untill then they remain "soft" or "social" sciences rather than "hard" "pure" or "worthwhile". (*runs from AS's vengeful wrath*).

 

[Crispy]

sciences rather than "hard" "pure" or "worthwhile". (
*runs from AS's vengeful wrath*

Her spirit stalks this thread

 

[Aldebaran]

History is a science (or it would not be an academic discipline) but not an exact science.

Why is it so difficult for all of you to call the "non exact" sciences science, while they *are* science?
It this merely an issue of language or is it a mentality. I suspect the latter.

salaam.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

History is a science (or it would not be an academic discipline) but not an exact science.

Why is it so difficult for all of you to call the "non exact" sciences science, while they *are* science?
It this merely an issue of language or is it a mentality. I suspect the latter.

salaam.

It's language. There was a definition earlier, use it.

 

[Aldebaran]

It's language. There was a definition earlier, use it.

I gave my definition. Why don't you use it?

salaam.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

I gave my definition. Why don't you use it?

salaam.

Because it's wrong, if you want to converse in English then take the time to learn what the words mean as well as the shape they make on the screen. If you don't like the way the words are defined then tough luck. (It's a pet hate of mine, sorry)

 

[Aldebaran]

No it is not wrong. Only for those using English it seems to be impossible to make such - logical - distinction.

Resorting to silly arrogance doesn't change that.

salaam.

 

[nosos]

Whereas in the physical sciences, it's usually possible to measure precisely which hypothesis fits the data the best.

Is it? Afaik it's generally agreed that data underdetermines theory in the natural sciences in just the same way as in the social science. However that's among philosophers of science so perhaps they're not an authoritative source.

 

[nosos]

It's language. There was a definition earlier, use it.

Er, why?

Rather than each side saying what a term means and demanding the other bow down before that percieved authority, why not try and justify the competing definitions?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

No it is not wrong. Only for those using English it seems to be impossible to make such - logical - distinction.

Resorting to silly arrogance doesn't change that.

salaam.

What, that your usage of a term is an incorrect one? You were uncertain if your disagreement was based in mentality or language. I think it is based in your understanding of what the word means. If you redefine it, and all other words which your definition varies from the official/accepted one you'll end up speaking your own language, fun but not productive.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Er, why?

Because without a structure to conform to, without mutually accepted meanings and definitions of words, terms and so on it's impossible to communicate.

 

[nosos]

Because without a structure to conform to, without mutually accepted meanings and definitions of words, terms and so on it's impossible to communicate.

No shit.

Go look at a dictionary and see the multiplicity of definitions words have. Look at technical terms which have specific meanings introduced for specific purposes. Look at how people actually speak and how far it differs from dictionary definitions: you look up the literal meaning of every word in this post and its still not enough to tell you the thought I was trying to get across. Literal dictionary meaning is just one component of language and saying "this is what the dictionary says. now stop arguing with me!" is a bit silly.

No matter anyway - I'm supposed to be working. So I'm actually going to close firefox now.... just like I said I was going to do 10 mins ago.

 

[Aldebaran]

What, that your usage of a term is an incorrect one?

No it isn't. The limited, exact science focussed use and interpretation thereof by English speakers is.

salaam.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Literal dictionary meaning is just one component of language and saying "this is what the dictionary says. now stop arguing with me!" is a bit silly.

As is making up your own definition and insisting that everyone else conforms to it.
Go back to the orriginal point, that the confusion was either down to mentality or to language, Aldebaran assumed that this was down to mentality rather than language, i assumed in turn this assumption was down to his understanding of the language (which has redefined at irregular intervals in other discussions).

 

[Aldebaran]

Aldebaran assumed that this was down to mentality rather than language, i assumed in turn this assumption was down to his understanding of the language (which has redefined at irregular intervals in other discussions).

No. It turns around the *use* of the very word "science" by people using this language, being that much in contrast - and very limited and limiting at that - compared to what the same terminology refers to and covers in other languages who have no problem with making the distinction "science" and "exact science".

Hence hold on to my view that is has less to do with "language" then with a - possibly cultural - bias towards everything that doesn't fall under exact sciences.

salaam.

 

[Jonti]

I don't think it is correct (in English) to say that history is a science. It may well use reason and evidence (as does jurisprudence, come to that), but we would classify each of these as a "humanity" rather that as a science.

And, literary criticism could be said to use "reason and evidence" as well. The thing about science ("the exact sciences") is that they seem able to uncover the hidden simplicities of the world. Hard scientific results like The Laws of Motion, Relativity, or Evolution simplify and systematise our understanding. But, within the humanities, there does not seem to be anything analogous going on that uncovers these kinds of underlying simplicity.

 

[amatis]

Aldebaran is right. in Belgium we make also that diference.
I think the English have sometimes a poor language. It is easy to make the diffference if you would only do it like we do.

For example in Dutch: "wetenschap" means sience and "historische wetenschap" means historical science or better: science of history, and it is a part of "humane wetenschappen" which means human sciences.
When you say "wetenschap" (plural: wetenschappen) everyone knows you mean the non-exact science(s). When you say "DE wetenschap(pen)" everyone knows you mean the exact science(s).
In French: sciences humaines/exactes or when you say "LA science" you always mean exact sciences.