Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science. Similarly history and psychology aren’t sciences and sociology isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like anthropology and archeology. History just isn’t a science at all it’s a humanities study, parts of it can be scientific but history generally isn’t science.
Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science.
That’s great but you said:
“there is no legitimate social sciences.”
Also this is nonsense like saying there is no physics because when it comes to study it’s broken into subfields.
As for the rest of your nonsense all science is, is:
A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area.
Psychology is absolutely a science. As for history you’re probably right that in and of itself it is not a science but it is a core part of much of the rest of the social science fields, this however doesn’t do much to further your argument that the social sciences as a field are illegitimate.
There isn’t, there is no social science, there are social sciences. Social science ≠ social sciences. One implies all encompassing the other makes it quite clear there isn’t a single social science but rather many sciences that don’t amount to society when you add them together.
First off you said social sciences were illegitimate also you have a very feeble grasp of what makes a field legitimate, we obviously have not found an encompassing theory for all society, but so what? The same is true fo physics, maths and so many other fields. You seem like a disgruntled stemlord and I would invite you to engage in some self reflection (and I understand in the west this may only be for the privileged few but) you should also try engage with these subfields a bit before denouncing the entire field.
Holy shit you’re either playing daft and are tedious or you’re tedious and daft. When it’s worded there is no legitimate social sciences the glaring mistake the pluralization given correct grammar would be there are no legitimate social sciences.
If that’s your deductive prowess on display it’s no wonder you seen confused.
Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn’t perfect in my fourth language your majesty I’ll try do better in the future /s
The fact is you’re wrong and are simply trying to find anything you can to weasel out of facing that fact that the field of social science is real, it’s subfields are legitimate and you have nothing but vibes and misunderstandings behind your thought to try hold up some vague heir of superiority you feel.
Daft isn’t ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh?
Add all of those together and it still doesn’t equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn’t possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that’s daft and tedious, you could have just said so.
Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is.
Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn’t make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation.
Quite literally the exact reason it’s not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn’t a thing.
Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science. Similarly history and psychology aren’t sciences and sociology isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like anthropology and archeology. History just isn’t a science at all it’s a humanities study, parts of it can be scientific but history generally isn’t science.
That’s great but you said:
“there is no legitimate social sciences.”
Also this is nonsense like saying there is no physics because when it comes to study it’s broken into subfields.
As for the rest of your nonsense all science is, is:
A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area.
Psychology is absolutely a science. As for history you’re probably right that in and of itself it is not a science but it is a core part of much of the rest of the social science fields, this however doesn’t do much to further your argument that the social sciences as a field are illegitimate.
There isn’t, there is no social science, there are social sciences. Social science ≠ social sciences. One implies all encompassing the other makes it quite clear there isn’t a single social science but rather many sciences that don’t amount to society when you add them together.
First off you said social sciences were illegitimate also you have a very feeble grasp of what makes a field legitimate, we obviously have not found an encompassing theory for all society, but so what? The same is true fo physics, maths and so many other fields. You seem like a disgruntled stemlord and I would invite you to engage in some self reflection (and I understand in the west this may only be for the privileged few but) you should also try engage with these subfields a bit before denouncing the entire field.
Holy shit you’re either playing daft and are tedious or you’re tedious and daft. When it’s worded there is no legitimate social sciences the glaring mistake the pluralization given correct grammar would be there are no legitimate social sciences.
If that’s your deductive prowess on display it’s no wonder you seen confused.
Go back to Reddit
Wow abelism from a debatelord never seen that before. Apologies that my grammar isn’t perfect in my fourth language your majesty I’ll try do better in the future /s
The fact is you’re wrong and are simply trying to find anything you can to weasel out of facing that fact that the field of social science is real, it’s subfields are legitimate and you have nothing but vibes and misunderstandings behind your thought to try hold up some vague heir of superiority you feel.
Daft isn’t ableist find something else to cry about. Daft punk, the ableist band huh?
Add all of those together and it still doesn’t equal society hence social sciences not social science, ie. The sciences that apply to society not societal sciences because that couldn’t possibly be objective or would have to be subjective. Ps. So that’s daft and tedious, you could have just said so.
Daft when used as a pejorative (a stand in for calling someone crazy or deranged) absolutely is.
Again simply because the field is yet to be completed doesn’t make it illegitimate. Physics has yet to be unified, math has yet to be completed yet they remain science. You are severely uninformed and again I implore you to do some self reflection and actually engage with the science and scientific community. You are not as intelligent as you think and clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Daft is usually a pejorative, it isn’t however ableist that’s just crybaby bullshit you’re using to try move the conversation into culture war bullshit instead of the actual conversation.
Quite literally the exact reason it’s not a science. Science is evidence based l, objective and repeatable. You’re implying at some point without any evidence whatsoever that we could end up finding everything is objectively provable through what I can only assume is psychohistory which isn’t likely our at all reasonable to assume. The fact the argument started as questioning if morals have weight is just more evidence that social science could never exist only social sciences. Ie. Sciences that relate to society not the science of society because that isn’t a thing.
There is no natural science.
Depends on what you define natural sciences as I imagine but under the generally accepted definition (geology, biology etc.) it 100% exists.