Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 11:47:34 UTC No. 16261007

>>16260932
Anthropology for most. Geography for least.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 12:59:12 UTC No. 16261048

>>16261007
Geography is a funny one since half of it is natural science (earth science) so by that alone it's probably the most scientific of the bunch. Sadly the other half is social mumbo jumbo.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 14:29:29 UTC No. 16261136

Economics and geography often include SOME mathematically rigorous instruction. There are also quant expressions of poli sci, anthropology, psychology, and sociology. I would thus say that history is the least scientific. However, history's obsession with stupid unified theories is so similar to math and physics, that it should at least be recognized for that.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 14:34:28 UTC No. 16261143

>>16260932
This will surprise you, but I'm going to go with philosophy, because that's the branch that deals with the study of logic and reasoning, and the rest of the social sciences flow from manipulating logic and justifying your opinions of things.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 14:35:53 UTC No. 16261146

>>16261143
>philosophy
It did surprise me, because philosophy isn't a social science at all, so of course I didn't expect someone to be dumb enough to pick something that wasn't even a valid option.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 14:38:54 UTC No. 16261151

>>16261146
>philosophy isn't a social science
Social science is a recent term. All social sciences used to be called "philosophies".

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 14:40:00 UTC No. 16261154

>>16261151
Yes, and the hard sciences used to be called natural philosophy. That doesn't make them relevant to the question. If this is profound to you, I recommend a dictionary.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 14:41:15 UTC No. 16261157

>>16261154
Sounds like philosophy is the ultimate science, of any type.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 15:09:03 UTC No. 16261186

>>16260932
Quantitative Sociobiology

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 15:50:11 UTC No. 16261241

>>16261136
>history's obsession with stupid unified theories
interesting, can you elaborate on that?

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 15:52:37 UTC No. 16261245

>>16261157
According to David Chalmers, philosophy is more pre-science that science. You get some cutting-edge open questions, you struggle with them for centuries, some smart guy comes (like Newton) and figures out the answers to some of the problem and the new science emerges: physics. The same happened with psychology, economics, biology etc. Philosophy is shrinking with each century.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 15:57:34 UTC No. 16261255

>>16261245
>Philosophy is shrinking with each century
tell me you are just a tard who don't understand philosophy without telling me.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 16:03:22 UTC No. 16261268

>>16261241
Consider your own discipline. In history, people love to talk about how X was actually the result of Y theory. Their preferred everything theory may be dialectal materialism, etc.

Whether or not this sort of thinking is wrong isn't for me to say, nor do I even want to comment on the merits of one theory or another, but it parallels the sort of thinking that is very common in math and physics. Given that history is not rigorous, however, these theories wax and wane on the basis of "vibes" as much as research it seems.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 16:12:48 UTC No. 16261285

>>16261255
>doesn't know Chalmers
>can't read
lmao, you didn't even read one single page of philosophy in your life, you fag. you aren't fooling anybody

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 16:14:24 UTC No. 16261290

>>16261268
this sounds like philosophy, not history

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 16:27:56 UTC No. 16261322

>>16261290
They're connect disciplines of course. I just raised dialectal materialism as an example. It is a modified version of Hegel's dialectic applied to history. There are many other grand theories with various foundations. Personally, I find the entire exercise of it to be pretty contrived, though not "wrong" per-se. That's what was meant by "stupid".

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 16:29:49 UTC No. 16261329

>>16261007
I had to study Geography as part of my Geology degree and let me tell you those guys are based as fuck. You should go study something like Remote Sensing. Basically sunlight is filtered through the sun's atmosphere where it loses a lot of color due to the absorption spectrum of hydrogen and helium and anything else in the sun's atmosphere, gets absorbed again going down to the surface of the Earth by all the gases in our atmosphere, get's reflected off objects to get absorbed a third time by the gases in our atmosphere again, then to be captured by whatever camera you've got on your satellite. After all that you've got to account for the type of camera you have and reinterpret what you're seeing on the ground to exacting detail because people rely on you for natural resources such as water in rainclouds and the growth of plant types in a farmer's field.

Those guys earn their keep let me tell you. All respect to Geographers.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 18:32:18 UTC No. 16261655

>>16261136
>I would thus say that history is the least scientific
You forgot history includes archeology. Also just a shitton of scientific legwork to run down what documents are fake, what translations are fucked up, and who is lying about what. Cross-checking sources and comparing physical traces with claims is scientific even if there isn't a beaker involved.

Fundamentally history has to be scientific because the past isn't up for debate.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 18:37:37 UTC No. 16261670

Least is evolutionary psychology. Modern day fucking phrenology.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 19:35:25 UTC No. 16261793

>>16261136
>economics tries to be rigorous
yep, but for what end? It's not like they're gonna establish precise laws like in physics. Basically economics is physics envy: the field. In some sense it reminds me of analytic philosophy: a lot of stubborn smart people covering up with muh math the fact that they can't be precise with concepts devoid of rigour to begin with.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 19:55:54 UTC No. 16261835

>>16261241
In terms of reporting on factual data, history is fine (at least within the constraints of the accuracy of available historical records).
In terms of reporting on causal relationships, though, it's a clusterfuck because every motherfucker has their own version of "actually - these events were caused by _____". And unfortunately, because of how invariably coupled historical events are, there's often a grain of truth to everyone's respective explanations, but it also leads to a lot of unproductive shit-flinging because Professor So-and-So doesn't recognize Doctor Such-and-Such's new thesis on World War I being caused by the plight of Indonesian grain merchants in the 12th century.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 20:04:59 UTC No. 16261849

>>16261835
Oh yeah, I know what you mean. History lerning at school was fun for me when it concerned actual events, dates and people. But then on the test you had to give every causes and effects of said events and it felt silly to memorise bunch of well established opinions (of course you had to give exactly the sa,e number of causes and effects the teacher was talking about and only them).

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 20:12:19 UTC No. 16261860

>>16261835
>>16261849
The converse is also true - a lot of historical study tends to try and oversimplify complex issues to "(insert thing here) BAD" or "(insert thing here) GOOD", losing a lot of important historical nuances in the process.

Both of these are why I wouldn't consider history a science, but a humanities topic. Reporting on raw historical details (who did what, when, where, etc.) and evaluating records to identify incongruities is certainly a data-driven process, but you can't make a plot of historical events and determine their correlation; history is as much about subjective interpretation of data as it is the data itself.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 20:13:39 UTC No. 16261866

>>16261793
It's more useful then your stupid physics.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 20:17:47 UTC No. 16261875

>>16260932
It's so sad historian in the picture is homeless.

Anonymous at Sun, 30 Jun 2024 21:53:30 UTC No. 16262003

>>16261875
I'm more concerned about the psychologist being haunted by hallucinations of a giant blue brain trying to stab her.

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 01:20:57 UTC No. 16262204

>>16261793
Not sure what the end is as it's not my field, but the practice of a lot of economics disciplines is very similar to the hard sciences.

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 08:39:31 UTC No. 16262617

>>16261860
>Both of these are why I wouldn't consider history a science, but a humanities topic
Yeah and I always though it's considerer humanities field (at least it's so in my country and at my uni in Europe, not sure how it's classified in USA), the image in the opening post is strangely including history to social sciences which is in my opinion misleading.

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 08:44:37 UTC No. 16262625

>>16261866
Ok, I'll bite, in what way? Physics is at leat partially responsible for computers, internet, rockets and satellites, among other things, and that's only shit from 20th century. Show me how economics is even comparable (spoiler alert: it isn't).

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 08:48:32 UTC No. 16262627

>>16262204
I know, but without actually delivering good predictive models like in natural sciences.

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 12:28:04 UTC No. 16262758

Linguistics is quite scientific but it's not on the picture. I often think about it as the most scientific social science.

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 13:18:53 UTC No. 16262794

>>16262758
Linguists are quant people who want to avoid numbers and make shit harder on themselves.

Anonymous at Mon, 1 Jul 2024 19:24:09 UTC No. 16263130

>>16262625
>computers, internet, rockets and satellites, among other things
engineers do that not your THEORIC physicist.

the dynamic optimal allocation of resources in the context of scarce means over time is far more complex than your stoopid physics.