|
Post by Vene on Apr 15, 2009 20:13:52 GMT -5
The social sciences looks at trends and relationships, not hard data. But it can come up with facts. I'm not saying that social sciences can't come up with facts, but that the methods used are not quite as solid as the physical sciences. It's not really a bad thing, it's just a consequence of what is being studied. The problem with trends is that it's hard to demonstrate stuff like causative relationships and often correlations are the best data available. This type of data can exist for the physical sciences too, but it's considered weaker and much more tentative than the majority of the data. When that data is the norm, like in social sciences, yes, they are a softer science.
|
|
|
Post by SaveTheBales on Apr 15, 2009 23:36:20 GMT -5
Try to find at least two precisely identical individuals. That's identical in every friggin' potential variable. Not likely. That's not how the social sciences work. Try to find two exactly identical economies, or identical polities. It's just not gonna happen. That doesn't mean that the social sciences are 'weak', it means that their conclusions have to be broader and drawn from history, rather than tests. They can still be equally as objective, it's just much harder. History is useful as a current point-of-reference - a shitty one at that. No more. Why? Objectivity is not possible when any study/news story/religious text/historical account, etc. is drafted by people (persons, humans, whatever). Shit, what I'm writing here is true to me for now. New information could change that. But my opinion will be bunk to any number of folks whose interpretation or background knowledge will differ. Until Sherman lets us in that sweet WayBack machine I've seen in cartoons, we can only rely on data that will have inherent flaws. One needs only look at how bible interpretation has split to the point of infinity since being thrown-together by a bunch of arrogant opinions. There is no truth in human nature, only subjective interpretation. That does not make social science weak. It renders it irrelevant. The same goes for any "science" that relies on human participants for conclusions. It's a job-creation machine to make professors feel important and help fill pages of textbooks with information as useful as a road-map that's been scribbled-on by a 3 year-old. Economists are using the same shitty map. They can generalize cause/effect/profit/loss 'til the cows come home. Because they know cows will eventually come back to the feed-bunk to pack their rumen with hay. On the other hand, humans are much more creative when it comes to their individual motivations for survival, and can obviously throw infinite wrenches that break theoretical machines to suit their own interests. It's pretty much a lose-lose situation all around. A cheery thought, I know. But coming to grips with the fact we're essentially fucking our own asses into extinction makes the short ride of life much more entertaining. Or at least easier to not take seriously.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 16, 2009 6:26:25 GMT -5
That's not how the social sciences work. Try to find two exactly identical economies, or identical polities. It's just not gonna happen. That doesn't mean that the social sciences are 'weak', it means that their conclusions have to be broader and drawn from history, rather than tests. They can still be equally as objective, it's just much harder. History is useful as a current point-of-reference - a shitty one at that. No more. Why? Objectivity is not possible when any study/news story/religious text/historical account, etc. is drafted by people (persons, humans, whatever). Sure it is. It's just much harder. You need oppositionary views, you need government documents and you need eyewitnesses that can be trusted. And you need a lot. If you get enough, it ceases to be subjective opinion, and become objective fact. In fact, some historical facts are classed as so true even doubting their occurence is a crime. A good example is the Holocaust. Anyone even suggesting the remotest glimpse of reasonable doubt about the holocaust is humiliated, disgraced and rejected, if not locked up. And for good reason: so much evidence has been amassed in support of the Holocaust- reams and reams of government documents, fucking millions of eyewitnesses and a missing 12 million people that it can be called fact, as much as gravity, as much as any other scientific conclusion. And if that doesn't count as objective, then the legal system can't be trusted either. People's lives are ended people get electrocuted and the lethal injection on the basis of much less historical evidence than is required for a social scientific conclusion. coming to grips with the fact we're essentially fucking our own asses into extinction And how do you know that? Polling done of the global and regional population of the world by polling agencies. Who work in the field of the social sciences.
|
|
|
Post by clockworkgirl21 on Apr 16, 2009 7:19:50 GMT -5
Well, it really doesn't matter if homosexuality is a choice or not. Either way, you get an entire group of people not being treated as humans with equal rights. That's why I just hate the argument. It doesn't matter.
|
|
|
Post by SaveTheBales on Apr 16, 2009 8:41:05 GMT -5
History is useful as a current point-of-reference - a shitty one at that. No more. Why? Objectivity is not possible when any study/news story/religious text/historical account, etc. is drafted by people (persons, humans, whatever). Sure it is. It's just much harder. You need oppositionary views, you need government documents and you need eyewitnesses that can be trusted. And you need a lot. If you get enough, it ceases to be subjective opinion, and become objective fact. In fact, some historical facts are classed as so true even doubting their occurence is a crime. A good example is the Holocaust. Anyone even suggesting the remotest glimpse of reasonable doubt about the holocaust is humiliated, disgraced and rejected, if not locked up. And for good reason: so much evidence has been amassed in support of the Holocaust- reams and reams of government documents, fucking millions of eyewitnesses and a missing 12 million people that it can be called fact, as much as gravity, as much as any other scientific conclusion. And if that doesn't count as objective, then the legal system can't be trusted either. People's lives are ended people get electrocuted and the lethal injection on the basis of much less historical evidence than is required for a social scientific conclusion. Two can play the strawman game. If nothing else, this exchange neatly illustrates my point. I'll start at the tailpipe of the above quote and work my way through the colon with a steaming pile of response. I've sat through 5 or 6 murder trials as a reporter. I've seen rape trials won in favor of the accused rapist. The legal system can't be trusted. Too many humans with subjective memories fuck that up as much as crooked lawyers defending the obviously guilty. Where do I mention basic physics? I said science "that relies on human participants for conclusions" can be nothing but generalizations and is thus at the mercy of individual interpretation. Physical scientific study, while easier to accurately document, is still at the mercy of the observer's motivation. For every conclusion, there is an equally opposite conclusion. Examples include climate change, radon as a basement death sentence, and... GRAVITY! Quantum theorists are busy busting their brains to prove everything we think we know about physics is wrong. The U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment agrees one needs oppositional views in the verbal marketplace so truth may reveal itself. They don't mention that history is written by the victors. What would happen if Iran or some other anti-semitic social group were able to nuke the USA, Israel, Germany, etc. into oblivion? In 100 years, would there be anyone who believed the holocaust happened? If all evidence became anecdotal and passed-on only verbally, it might literally fade from history altogether. I personally believe the holocaust to be absolute truth. And anyone who thinks otherwise should have their genitals hooked to a car battery. But there are those who don't. And if they had a chance, they'd wipe it from the memory of history. coming to grips with the fact we're essentially fucking our own asses into extinction And how do you know that? Polling done of the global and regional population of the world by polling agencies. Who work in the field of the social sciences. Hell no. Like all good opinionated bastards, I've aggregated years of personal observation, experience, and subtle social manipulation to reach that conclusion. I've observed the increasing fragmentation of society through real-time land-use disputes, political posturing, and the shitstorm that ensues when anyone fucks with another's comfort-zone, money, plans, and a myriad of other manefestations of the survival instinct. My opinion is we're fucked. I hope I'm wrong. I'd gladly adjust that assertion accordingly given the proof. But I don't see it at this point-in-time. Ironically, I'm also aware of the inherent flaws in my own reasoning. I don't claim any moral high-ground whatsoever. Anyone who does is lying to themselves and the rest of us.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 16, 2009 20:09:19 GMT -5
Well, it really doesn't matter if homosexuality is a choice or not. Either way, you get an entire group of people not being treated as humans with equal rights. That's why I just hate the argument. It doesn't matter. Well, from a strictly legal standpoint, it does matter, that's all I'm trying to say. In Supreme Court cases, if you want to win, the Justices usually have to use a process known as "strict scrutiny." When this is applied, the government has to have a damn good reason for imposing the law in question, such as a gay marriage ban. The times when they actually use strict scrutiny are when they're dealing with a fundamental right and when the person being disenfranchised is a member of a "suspect class" whose characteristics are as follows: 1.) a "discrete" or "insular" minority who 2.) possess an immutable trait (race or alienage) 3.) share a history of discrimination, and 4.) are powerless to protect themselves via the political process. So far, sexual orientation is not on the list of groups protected by the suspect classification like race, national origin, and religion.
|
|
|
Post by perv on Apr 17, 2009 0:06:02 GMT -5
The times when they actually use strict scrutiny are when they're dealing with a fundamental right and when the person being disenfranchised is a member of a "suspect class" whose characteristics are as follows: 1.) a "discrete" or "insular" minority who 2.) possess an immutable trait (race or alienage) 3.) share a history of discrimination, and 4.) are powerless to protect themselves via the political process. So far, sexual orientation is not on the list of groups protected by the suspect classification like race, national origin, and religion. How did religion get on there? That's clearly not immutable.
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Apr 17, 2009 10:17:51 GMT -5
The times when they actually use strict scrutiny are when they're dealing with a fundamental right and when the person being disenfranchised is a member of a "suspect class" whose characteristics are as follows: 1.) a "discrete" or "insular" minority who 2.) possess an immutable trait (race or alienage) 3.) share a history of discrimination, and 4.) are powerless to protect themselves via the political process. So far, sexual orientation is not on the list of groups protected by the suspect classification like race, national origin, and religion. How did religion get on there? That's clearly not immutable. Don't ya just love the Supreme Court? ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png) The next level of scrutiny is "intermediate scrutiny" which deals with the "Quasi-Suspect Class" which holds people with disabilities, sexual orientation and gender. Intermediate scrutiny means that if the state has a compelling reason for the law, it can be upheld. This, of course, makes sense in some instances. For example, if there were a law which barred recently pregnant women from being next to something radioactive in a power plant (meh, best example I could think of at the moment). Obviously men and women can both work there but only women can become pregnant and carry a child which is susceptible to dangerous things like radioactivity. (Or when their breasts get in the way of their work---I hope some people get the reference...)
|
|