☰
×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
54

"Social Sciences" are not sciences. They claim to be but their power of observation is based on emotion and not objectivity

submitted by sguevar to whatever 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 11:39:18 ago (+54/-0)     (whatever)

I am currently watching this documentary - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rctYz6QcNP0&ab_channel=AlMutanabi - I don't care if the producer is controlled opposition. I am amazed that this dude sat down to listen this bunch of stupid "Experts" for several minutes... his face before their imbecile answers cracks me up...

Gender dysphoria is a mental illness.

They are sodomites who look to groom the younger generations so they can accept themselves... Is pathetic.


31 comments block

sort by: hot new top old low

[ - ] cyclops1771 4 points 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 11:50:00 ago (+4/-0)

They have to base it off "surveys" and "responses" that may or may not reflect actuality. The person could be responding the way they think the asker wants, or opposite of the way they think the asker wants, if they are contrarian. they could be reading a leading question, or responding to a scenario that has a specific bias, and that bias is not accounted for.

The problem is that "science" is using the scientific method, - question, research, hypothesis, methodology, experimentation, removal of any falsification, conclusion, publishing, repeatability, and review/acceptance of noth methods and results..

[ - ] sguevar [op] 2 points 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 11:59:14 ago (+2/-0)

I agree, they decide to leave aside the scientific method when it does not fit their agenda and yet say they use it. However, they obviously fail in one or more parts of the method.

[ - ] cyclops1771 2 points 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 12:11:02 ago (+2/-0)

Like with the climnate change stuff, they falsify the data by ignoring the pieces that do not fit:

“Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.”

Thomas Kuhn noted that people inside a dedicated science will do this unconsciously - ignoring the outliers during their observations or experiments. "Everyone knows that can't happen because 'science is settled' and 'it always works that way'" but in reality, that crazy outlier IS the important piece of data. Finding out WHY or HOW the weird data points even exist when they shouldn't is where the analysis and conclusions need to focus on. And only newcomers or amateurs will be able to come to these conclusions because they don't have any experience or history behind them (no thought paradigm to shift). This is why you do not see breakthroughs in science by 50 year olds. It is always some outsider or young mind just starting out that will make these breakthroughs.

[ - ] sguevar [op] 1 point 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 12:15:21 ago (+1/-0)

They have corrupted the meaning of science into scientism just as they have corrupted the meaning of Freedom to debauchery.

[ - ] GoldenAgeWhen 0 points 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 15:07:31 ago (+0/-0)

"freedom, you know, anal sex with children"

[ - ] dalai_llama 1 point 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 15:29:04 ago (+1/-0)

Ya it's much better to base your ideas off of fanciful conjecture like the entirety of the talklol userbase.

[ - ] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 21:36:01 ago (+0/-0)

They lack falsifiability because people can't be raised in, eg, two identical labs except for one gets fed rice and the other one corn. They're constantly using undergraduate students at research universities looking to make 20 or 50 bucks as standins for the general public, too. They have nothing in common with the general public.

[ - ] cyclops1771 0 points 2.7 yearsAug 11, 2022 10:35:12 ago (+0/-0)

I do a bunch of "harvard labs" survey thingies, and they are ALL about identity politics and leftist shit, and I go full Nazi on them. Then claim I am black or Spic if I am bored.

[ - ] Ozark 3 points 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 11:47:28 ago (+4/-1)

I still don't want to go outside.

[ - ] sguevar [op] 1 point 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 11:52:47 ago (+1/-0)

That is why I rather go to rural parts... The more humble the persons are, the more common sense they have. At least that is what I have seen in my life experience.

[ - ] ruck_feddit 0 points 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 13:48:48 ago (+0/-0)

Oh no, I'm outside right now!

[ - ] Special_Prosecutor 2 points 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 13:24:52 ago (+2/-0)

Propogating the misuse of the word "gender" is a mental illness.

They are suffering from "sexual dysphoria." Control the language, control the people. You've been bamboozled and don't even know it.

You lose everytime you repeat "gender."

[ - ] GoldenAgeWhen 1 point 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 15:13:35 ago (+1/-0)

it is because no one asks them to define anything. They control the language, this is true, but it is through the omission of logic and definitions. It allows them to change the goal posts and the discussion without showing anything.

[ - ] GoldenAgeWhen 2 points 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 12:50:05 ago (+2/-0)

There needs to be a rule that if someone would like to use a word they must be able to define it on request.

In this case I would like to know how "science" is defined. To me it would be "The study of something using the Scientific Method". which is slightly circular but the Method is pretty well defined and I don't think anyone disagrees.

[ - ] x0x7 1 point 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 18:08:45 ago (+1/-0)

The scientific method is not the only method of science or even the most powerful. The law of thermodynamics is not derived using the scientific method. Therefore science's definition must be more broad than just "using the scientific method."

[ - ] GoldenAgeWhen 0 points 2.7 yearsAug 11, 2022 16:19:51 ago (+0/-0)

There is no "law of thermodynamics"...

And how do you think it happened if it wasn't the scientific method? Some guy wrote it down and said "I am the science" and everyone took him at his word?

[ - ] sguevar [op] 0 points 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 14:54:10 ago (+0/-0)

I would also say that etymology matters.

[ - ] usedoilanalysis 1 point 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 17:45:27 ago (+1/-0)

Science is hypothesis, gather data, test hypothesis. IF hypothesis agrees with data, challenge hypothesis, gather more data, increase comprehension of hypothesis, modify if inconsistent with data. Rinse and repeat, if you aren't challenging your hypothesis then you're a fucking tranny atheist bitch.

[ - ] sguevar [op] 0 points 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 18:48:12 ago (+0/-0)

Agreed, couldn't have put it more bluntly and clearly. The punch line in the end cracked me up.

[ - ] x0x7 1 point 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 16:41:41 ago (+1/-0)

The exception are some elements of economics. Supply and demand is derived from logic which is the highest order in science even above data. In science the resultant certainty starts high and goes low in this order:

Logic, data, emotions.

Logic gives you laws. Data gives you theories. Emotions give you sociology.

Economics uses both logic and data so it is an actual science. In fact sciences that use more data than logic are considered soft sciences while those more strongly tied to logic are hard science. Biology and medicine are on the softer side while physics is the hardest science there is. Some elements of economics are even a hard science, like most of micro-economics.

Economics nearly has a monopoly on putting the science in social science.

[ - ] sguevar [op] 0 points 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 18:54:52 ago (+0/-0)

One thing about economics is that it still uses analysis to predict a possible outcome. It is already known that the outcome may or not happen but the prediction, with a degree of error, can come close to what the outcome was. If not, then you can then analyze what was wrong with the first analysis to correct it in the future.

However, it is not disingenuous as these degenerates are being.

[ - ] rhy 1 point 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 16:08:54 ago (+1/-0)

OMG 💯💯💯💯

[ - ] fritz_maurentod 1 point 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 16:07:04 ago (+1/-0)

Social sciences were amazingly good and back in the day produced results as strong as the natural sciences. Go read e.g. the work Francis Galton.

The problem is that the social sciences were the first to get ruined by politics. Let them use race differences in intelligence, moral character, aggression, etc. etc. an they will model the world's problems extremely well.

The same is happening to Physics with the climate change hoax. They are unable to produce good science because they have to somehow reduce it to the CO2 as main factor.

[ - ] sguevar [op] 0 points 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 18:58:27 ago (+0/-0)

Well, in my view, they are not sciences. They are studies that use science to support their conjectures. Such as statistics for example. I.e. I can't consider sociology a science when most of their conjectures are based on subjectivity.

[ - ] Sunman_Omega 1 point 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 14:22:33 ago (+1/-0)

Totes agree. There's another kind of "science" that isn't science either; "political science." "Political science" is also run off of emotions but also narrative (muh say so), no actual scientific method at all. Fuck commies.

[ - ] Boardallday3 1 point 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 14:07:07 ago (+1/-0)

On r/science the front page, half of the posts are "social science" articles are just pure kike communist propaganda. And so heavily moderated you cant call the "studies" bullshit. ... Half of the rest usually are "Medicine" and about trans shit and cofraud19

[ - ] sguevar [op] 0 points 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 18:51:40 ago (+0/-0)

The start if that sentence already shows the reason why "r/"

Stop going into redshit lol

I see what you mean though.

[ - ] Teefinyomouf 0 points 2.7 yearsAug 11, 2022 09:24:13 ago (+0/-0)

"Trannies kill themselves often therefore being tranny makes you kill yourself."

Isn't that basically what social "science" is?

[ - ] Sheitstrom 0 points 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 15:12:42 ago (+0/-0)

In general, middle-brow and woke university specialities are called the "soft sciences".

[ - ] dalai_llama 0 points 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 13:57:49 ago (+0/-0)

If you want to be honest with yourself, I don't see anyone base their rationale off of anything scientific. Everyone bases their ideas off of pure emotion.

[ - ] sguevar [op] 0 points 2.7 yearsAug 10, 2022 19:00:59 ago (+0/-0)

The fact that stupidity and degeneracy triggers a set of emotions, for example, repulsion and disdain, does not mean that those emotions are not based in prior scientific knowledge.