Image not available

900x750

6B85894E-1D4E-473....jpg

🧵 Do the social sciences properly follow the scientific method?

Anonymous No. 16190045

This man didn’t think so.

Anonymous No. 16190047

Sometimes the physical sciences don't even follow the scientific method anymore

Anonymous No. 16190055

>>16190045
Plenty of sciences do not follow the Puritan method and work just fine.
ML is probably the best example, ML researchers make a lot of progress every year and submit in the tens of thousands of papers per conference and all they do basically boils down to throwing shit at the wall and see if sticks.
There's no hypothesis, no clear math derivation, no theoretical perspective, it's all them playing with optimization methods with total disregard to the assumptions that should go with them, and yet they're at the forefront of science today.

Anonymous No. 16190090

>>16190055
Computer science is not science. Never has been. It’s been applied math or engineering. But not science.

Anonymous No. 16190092

>>16190047
No wonder they are stagnating.

Anonymous No. 16190093

>>16190090
No one cares, autismo

Anonymous No. 16190144

While above anons have correctly pointed that many sciences now do not precisely follow the scientific method, what differentiates good science from pseudoscience is the ability to replicate experiments. The social sciences cannot replicate experiments like the hard sciences can. What they generally do is take a sample of the population for their experiments and extrapolate this sample on everyone. It’s a ridiculous idea and it’s why the replication crisis exists.

Anonymous No. 16190382

>>16190144
>cosmology is pseudoscience
i knew it

Anonymous No. 16190463

>>16190045
They did until some "people" said that examing skull shape was racist or something.

Anonymous No. 16190471

>>16190047
>sometimes
>anymore

Anonymous No. 16190496

>>16190090
Retarded