Is sociology a real science?

Gregor Samsa

riffmongous wrote: »

Mathematics isn't about being testable the same way a 'real' science is, it's about the mathematical proof. You can do lots of correct mathematics without any recourse to observation of the natural world

Of course it is. You can test the hypothesis that 1+1=2 any time you want by getting one apple, getting another apple, and seeing how many apples you have. This is a scientific experiment that tests and verifies the hypothesis, as much as any chemistry or physics experiment.

And it goes further. Arithmetic, calculus and all the rest. All the things that make up mathematics - they are testable propositions that were discovered via observation, experimentation and verification. It’s pure science - pure because it solely relies on objective outcomes and not on subjective interpretation in the way that even many other sciences do.

PGE1970

Gregor Samsa

riffmongous wrote: »

Correct as in not wrong, logically consistent. A follows B within the logic I'm using. There is no need for it to be tested the way a science is

There actually is. We regard arithmetic as so self evident that we don’t even think about it, but it actually does need to be proven to be true. Whitehead and Russell dedicate hundreds of pages in Principia Mathematica to establishing the foundations of arithmetic in order to prove that 1+1=2. The same with everything else in maths - it has been tested.

But just like gravity, we don’t have to keep on testing it all the time in order to use it.

riffmongous

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Of course it is. You can test the hypothesis that 1+1=2 any time you want by getting one apple, getting another apple, and seeing how many apples you have. This is a scientific experiment that tests and verifies the hypothesis, as much as any chemistry or physics experiment.

And it goes further. Arithmetic, calculus and all the rest. All the things that make up mathematics - they are testable propositions that were discovered via observation, experimentation and verification. It’s pure science - pure because it solely relies on objective outcomes and not on subjective interpretation in the way that even many other sciences do.

I don't think that's a hypothesis, it's one of the Peano axioms.

And no maths is not based on observation and experimentation. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Non- euclidean geometry is a pretty basic example of that. It can involve them if you want, but it doesn't have to be and this is why it's so often a very useful tool for actual scientists.

Gregor Samsa

riffmongous wrote: »

I don't think that's a hypothesis, it's one of the Peano axioms.

And no maths is not based on observation and experimentation. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Non- euclidean geometry is a pretty basic example of that. It can involve them if you want, but it doesn't have to be and this is why it's so often a very useful tool for actual scientists.

It’s a hypothesis if you’re setting out to see whether it’s true or not.

I think you’re limiting your view of what is observation and experimentation. Maybe that’s why you don’t regard maths as a science. I think what you’re regarding as “science” - things that need to be verified out in the “real world” - is what would generally be regarded as “natural sciences”. In that sense, mathematics would be an “abstract science”. But that doesn’t take away from the fact that the basic principles of what defines science - testable explanations and predictions - fundamentally apply to it.

The science test in simple terms, applied to math by Berkeley.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/mathematics

Mathematics is such a useful tool that science could make few advances without it. However, math and standard sciences, like biology, physics, and chemistry, are distinct in at least one way: how ideas are tested and accepted based on evidence. Math doesn't rely on testing ideas against evidence from the natural world in the same way that other sciences do.

i_surge

gailforecast wrote: »

My other half studied sociology up to a masters level, and maintains that it isn’t.

It needs a rework to call itself a science.

Some of the theories are absolutely false by any simple analysis but their adherents cling to them for dear life and use a lot of convoluted rationalisation. An area with a lot of bias too which makes a mockery of peer review.

jimgoose

Candie wrote: »

The science test in simple terms, applied to math by Berkeley.

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/mathematics

Let us assume, for the moment, that all horses are spherical...

riffmongous

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

There actually is. We regard arithmetic as so self evident that we don’t even think about it, but it actually does need to be proven to be true. Whitehead and Russell dedicate hundreds of pages in Principia Mathematica to establishing the foundations of arithmetic in order to prove that 1+1=2. The same with everything else in maths - it has been tested.

But just like gravity, we don’t have to keep on testing it all the time in order to use it.

No that's a proof, not a test. You can see the difference there surely?

Capt'n Midnight

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Of course it is. You can test the hypothesis that 1+1=2 any time you want by getting one apple, getting another apple, and seeing how many apples you have. This is a scientific experiment that tests and verifies the hypothesis, as much as any chemistry or physics experiment.

Who was it that tried to formulate a system of provable maths and after a lot of work it failed to prove one and one were two ?

maxwell smart

I thought the thread title was Is Scientology a real Science.

Very disappointing

Peregrinus

mariaalice wrote: »

well then how to account for the likes of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Dworkin or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls

Both highly influence in ideas around using the law to achieve social justice.

Legal studies is open to multiple interpretations like all social science.

Plus how do you define fairness?

I didn't use the term "fairness"; why are you asking me to define it?

Think for a moment about technological subejcts like engineering or pharmacology. You'd accept those as fundamentally scientific fields, right? But there's also a non-scientific dimension to them; you can apply scientific principles to build a better bridge or a beter gallows or a better atom bomb, but the decision to build the bridge, the gallows or the bomb not a scientific one, since it fundamentally rests on non-scientific value judgments. (Should we spend public money building the bridge, or improving schools, or not spend it and reduce taxes instead? Should we be hanging people at all?)

Once you move away from pure science and into technology you are inevitably muddying the waters in this way - the question of how to do X can't really be disentangled from the question of why to do X or whether to do X. Even the apparently technical question of how to do X can be subordinated to non-scientific considerations - e.g. ethical constraints on drug trials/testing in pharmacology.

But if this doesn't stop engineering or pharmacology from being science, then it equally doesn't stop the social sciences from being science. "Should we reduce car thefts?" is not a scientific question. But if you decide that you do want to reduce car thefts, then you can certainly use scientific methods to identify which legal and/or policy measures are likely to be more effective to
reduce car thefts, and which are likely to be less effective.

YFlyer

Tired Gardener wrote: »

I can apply the knowledge that soil is the coming together of the four spheres (Aerosphere, Biosphere, Hydrosphere, and Lithosphere) .

You can also expand to peat, leonardite, lignite, sub bituminous, bituminous and anthracite formationwith the same knowledge and understanding. Not forgetting oil shale, tar sands and crude oil etc.

YFlyer

riffmongous wrote: »

Mathematics isn't about being testable the same way a 'real' science is, it's about the mathematical proof. You can do lots of correct mathematics without any recourse to observation of the natural world

It's nearly all applied science now based on fundamental principles and laws determined from previous centuries.

Wanderer78

No I wouldn't class it as a science in the traditional sense, but I would class it as a critical subject matter, it's extremely important we debate if we are doing the right things for humanity by our actions, or lack of, sociology is a critical tool in these observations

YFlyer

maxwell smart wrote: »

I thought the thread title was Is Scientology a real Science.

Very disappointing

Squirreling has a measurable effect.

riffmongous

riffmongous wrote: »

No not wrong, with maths I can set up a space with any number of dimensions that I choose, I can choose different different types of geometry etc.

riffmongous wrote: »

Correct as in not wrong, logically consistent. A follows B within the logic I'm using.

No offence but you sound like one of those people who want to talk about maths and have absolutely no idea of what they're saying.

I actually cannot make sense of this. Yes I suppose there are different "types" of geometry if you want to use that langauge, but "A follows B within the logic I'm using? What? This doesn't make sense.

Wanderer78

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

quote="riffmongous;114222587"]
It does.

No not wrong, with maths I can set up a space with any number of dimensions that I choose, I can choose different different types of geometry etc. [/Quoye]



No offence but you sound like one of those people who want to talk about maths and have absolutely no idea of what they're saying.

I actually cannot make sense of this. Yes I suppose there are different "types" of geometry if you want to use that langauge, but "A follows B within the logic I'm using? What? This doesn't make sense.

these are 'alternative facts'!

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

these are 'alternative facts'!

We're in that territory alright. Bizarre.

raah!

By any metric or definition of what a science is, or what constitutes a scientific practice, sociology is certainly the least scientific of the sciences.

There is alot of work of dubious objectivity published. For example I once read a paper which set out to find "bias against women in schools", the data presented showed that there was in fact a bias against men, but the confusion of the paper then read along the lines of "we didn't find the bias against women here, it must be somewhere else". They went out to try to confirm something they wanted to believe, and when they found evidence to the contrary they ignored it.

I also think that there is a limitation on the utility of fields like sociology which apply to our actual lived experience: if there is result from a sciology paper which flies in the face of what you can readily observe in the world about you, then it's probably wrong; if there is some result which is in accordance with what you can see about you, then it is of little use.

riffmongous

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

No offence but you sound like one of those people who want to talk about maths and have absolutely no idea of what they're saying.

Considering you came out with the following

Fundamentally, all mathematical problems represent dilemmas in the natural world.

there is no offence taken. Using maths I can define any thing I want more or less, if it makes it easier for you to understand, I can define any universe that I want, with any number of dimensions, euclidean/ non-euclidean geometry. It's all mathematically correct/ valid, consistent/ whatever makes word makes sense to you.

I actually cannot make sense of this. Yes I suppose there are different "types" of geometry if you want to use that langauge, but "A follows B within the logic I'm using? What? This doesn't make sense.

You define your logic at the start, as long as every step that you make follows those rules it's correct, it's only judged against it's own logic and rules. In science, I can try something similar but at every step I need to check that it tallies with observations of the natural world.

riffmongous

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

We're in that territory alright. Bizarre.

Well maybe if you realise that other people might know a bit more than just quadratic equations it wouldn't seem so bizarre

Wanderer78

riffmongous wrote: »

Considering you came out with the following



there is no offence taken. Using maths I can define any thing I want more or less, if it makes it easier for you to understand, I can define any universe that I want, with any number of dimensions, euclidean/ non-euclidean geometry. It's all mathematically correct/ valid, consistent/ whatever makes word makes sense to you.



You define your logic at the start, as long as every step that you make follows those rules it's correct, it's only judged against it's own logic and rules. In science, I can try something similar but at every step I need to check that it tallies with observations of the natural world.

I wonder is this the same logic neoclassical economists use!

i_surge

The language used to write sociology books is not the language of science. Wishy washy hyperverbose garbage.

Wanderer78

i_surge wrote: »

The language used to write sociology books is not the language of science. Wishy washy hyperverbose garbage.

Or maybe your a lefty(left brained)

i_surge

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Or maybe your a lefty(left brained)

I don't get your point. Bit of both thankfully.

The writing style of sociology is extremely irksome.

partyguinness

In my book 'science' is an exact discipline. Sociology is anything but an exact discipline so I would not regard it as science akin to physics, chemistry etc.

It is regarded as a 'Social Science' is it not?

It was just a glorified Arts degree in my day and you were on the fast track to nowhere.

coffee_cake

riffmongous wrote: »

Considering you came out with the following



there is no offence taken. Using maths I can define any thing I want more or less, if it makes it easier for you to understand, I can define any universe that I want, with any number of dimensions, euclidean/ non-euclidean geometry. It's all mathematically correct/ valid, consistent/ whatever makes word makes sense to you.



You define your logic at the start, as long as every step that you make follows those rules it's correct, it's only judged against it's own logic and rules. In science, I can try something similar but at every step I need to check that it tallies with observations of the natural world.

So you're saying you can create any internally consistent mathematical models which may or may not have any bearing on the real world. makes sense

I'd be on the side of maths not being a science as well, it underpins it but is not one in the same sense as physics etc

partyguinness

The biggest challenge when speaking to a sociology student was keeping a straight face or not asking for a BigMac. Then again I was an obnoxious supremely confident law student.

I am sure it is very interesting. I genuinely mean that but I wouldn't rushing into as a long term career.

I know in the US social science graduates are among the lowest earners post graduation.

i_surge

raah! wrote: »

By any metric or definition of what a science is, or what constitutes a scientific practice, sociology is certainly the least scientific of the sciences.

There is alot of work of dubious objectivity published. For example I once read a paper which set out to find "bias against women in schools", the data presented showed that there was in fact a bias against men, but the confusion of the paper then read along the lines of "we didn't find the bias against women here, it must be somewhere else". They went out to try to confirm something they wanted to believe, and when they found evidence to the contrary they ignored it.

I also think that there is a limitation on the utility of fields like sociology which apply to our actual lived experience: if there is result from a sciology paper which flies in the face of what you can readily observe in the world about you, then it's probably wrong; if there is some result which is in accordance with what you can see about you, then it is of little use.

Thanks.

I have honed in on it now....I once sat through an anthropology conference and heard the phrase "seeks to find" about twenty times.

They decide in advance what results they would like from their research.