And lets use the word "science" very loosely while we're at it.
You mean like the quotation fingers people use when telling each other that you think you understand computer "science" or did you mean to imply that an established field with decades of repeatable research shouldn't be defined as science because you can't see what it has to do with rockets?
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- UK Asylumites, which class are you?
UK Asylumites, which class are you?Follow
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Smasharoo wrote:
And lets use the word "science" very loosely while we're at it.
You mean like the quotation fingers people use when telling each other that you think you understand computer "science" or did you mean to imply that an established field with decades of repeatable research shouldn't be defined as science because you can't see what it has to do with rockets?
You mean like the quotation fingers people use when telling each other that you think you understand computer "science" or did you mean to imply that an established field with decades of repeatable research shouldn't be defined as science because you can't see what it has to do with rockets?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Little Rabbit Fu-fu hops through my head whenever i see someone doing the finger quotes.
Makes me want to Bop them On the Head
Makes me want to Bop them On the Head
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Isn't the lyric "Little bunny fu-fu"?
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Nilatai wrote:
Isn't the lyric "Little bunny fu-fu"?
Hah, wrong thread.
Edit: Whoops, she posted the lyrics in both threads. Nevermind.
Edited, Apr 8th 2013 9:40am by Shaowstrike
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100
"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Isn't the lyric "Little bunny fu-fu"?
Hah, wrong thread.
Edit: Whoops, she posted the lyrics in both threads. Nevermind.
Edited, Apr 8th 2013 9:40am by Shaowstrike
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Quick...
What do you call a row of rabbits hopping backwards?
a receding hairline
What do you call a row of rabbits hopping backwards?
a receding hairline
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
What do you call an agoraphobic rabbit?
an in-grown hare
an in-grown hare
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Smasharoo wrote:
And lets use the word "science" very loosely while we're at it.
... or did you mean to imply that an established field with decades of repeatable research shouldn't be defined as science because you can't see what it has to do with rockets?
... or did you mean to imply that an established field with decades of repeatable research shouldn't be defined as science because you can't see what it has to do with rockets?
No. I mean to imply that for something to be science, then something remotely resembling actual scientific method should be involved in its findings and conclusions. Sociology is almost entirely based on subjective popular trends, and when those in the field bother to perform tests, they're rarely testing their theories themselves, and usually construct the tests to ensure they arrive at the conclusion they started with. The whole non-falsifiable problem is rampant.
But thanks for asking. It shows you care.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
And lets use the word "science" very loosely while we're at it.
... or did you mean to imply that an established field with decades of repeatable research shouldn't be defined as science because you can't see what it has to do with rockets?
... or did you mean to imply that an established field with decades of repeatable research shouldn't be defined as science because you can't see what it has to do with rockets?
No. I mean to imply that for something to be science, then something remotely resembling actual scientific method should be involved in its findings and conclusions. Sociology is almost entirely based on subjective popular trends, and when those in the field bother to perform tests, they're rarely testing their theories themselves, and usually construct the tests to ensure they arrive at the conclusion they started with. The whole non-falsifiable problem is rampant.
But thanks for asking. It shows you care.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
No. I mean to imply that for something to be science, then something remotely resembling actual scientific method should be involved in its findings and conclusions. Sociology is almost entirely based on subjective popular trends, and when those in the field bother to perform tests, they're rarely testing their theories themselves, and usually construct the tests to ensure they arrive at the conclusion they started with. The whole non-falsifiable problem is rampant.
False. Certainly harder to test "women like tall men more than short men" than it is to test "objects of differing mass fall at the same rate", but scientific method is certainly applied to sociology. I can see why you might not think so as you view "sociology" as a series of goofy studies you read about in newspapers, and not the studies that show that you were likely to read about such things in the newspaper, which are the ones that matter, really. Every decision you've made in your modern life has been influenced by what social science knows about how you'll act, your ignorance of that fact doesn't really matter. Amusingly, neither does my awareness of it. Both of us are manipulated into wanting things on a near constant basis. The refinement of this over the last century or so is what social science really is.
False. Certainly harder to test "women like tall men more than short men" than it is to test "objects of differing mass fall at the same rate", but scientific method is certainly applied to sociology. I can see why you might not think so as you view "sociology" as a series of goofy studies you read about in newspapers, and not the studies that show that you were likely to read about such things in the newspaper, which are the ones that matter, really. Every decision you've made in your modern life has been influenced by what social science knows about how you'll act, your ignorance of that fact doesn't really matter. Amusingly, neither does my awareness of it. Both of us are manipulated into wanting things on a near constant basis. The refinement of this over the last century or so is what social science really is.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
Simplified, what sociologists study is somewhat squishy, but the methodology isn't.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
I've seen a sociologist's tool for "textual narrative analysis" at work - the thing that they use to compare data from transcribed interviews with people. It's a pretty hardcore little piece of software, and is not unlike its new big brothers, the big data analytic engines.
Trust me, they're being as scientific about that kind of stuff as any other scientist out there. They use as much statistical analysis as any botanist or chemist. They use the scientific method - propose a hypothesis, conduct experiments (interviews usually), compile the results, compare the results to the hypothesis, and draw new conclusions or re-affirm old conclusions as necessary. They have strict controls over what is acceptable usage of data, who they can interview, etc done by the IRB boards for their respective universities and think tanks. (They can't interview minors without parental approval, for example, unless explicitly permitted.)
The only difference is that their test subjects are human beings instead of plants or chemicals.
Trust me, they're being as scientific about that kind of stuff as any other scientist out there. They use as much statistical analysis as any botanist or chemist. They use the scientific method - propose a hypothesis, conduct experiments (interviews usually), compile the results, compare the results to the hypothesis, and draw new conclusions or re-affirm old conclusions as necessary. They have strict controls over what is acceptable usage of data, who they can interview, etc done by the IRB boards for their respective universities and think tanks. (They can't interview minors without parental approval, for example, unless explicitly permitted.)
The only difference is that their test subjects are human beings instead of plants or chemicals.
I'm gonna go tweet about what a joke sociology is, then I'm gonna have some lunch. #EATFRESH #ohnoIdidnt #trackmemoreplease
Catwho wrote:
I've seen a sociologist's tool for "textual narrative analysis" at work - the thing that they use to compare data from transcribed interviews with people. It's a pretty hardcore little piece of software, and is not unlike its new big brothers, the big data analytic engines.
Using technology doesn't make what you're doing science.
Quote:
Trust me, they're being as scientific about that kind of stuff as any other scientist out there. They use as much statistical analysis as any botanist or chemist.
Not even close to the same amount. Statistics and math are almost afterthoughts in sociology course work.
Quote:
They use the scientific method - propose a hypothesis, conduct experiments (interviews usually), compile the results, compare the results to the hypothesis, and draw new conclusions or re-affirm old conclusions as necessary.
On rare occasions, I'm sure this does happen. Most of the time it's testing to the theory (and I'm using "theory" loosely here), or deriving the theory post-hoc from the testing (with follow up testing rarely occurring). To be good science one has to derive a test to disprove the hypothesis. Sociological experiments very very very rarely do this.
Quote:
They have strict controls over what is acceptable usage of data, who they can interview, etc done by the IRB boards for their respective universities and think tanks. (They can't interview minors without parental approval, for example, unless explicitly permitted.)
Which, again, has nothing to do with whether they're using proper scientific methodology.
Quote:
The only difference is that their test subjects are human beings instead of plants or chemicals.
Oh, I fully agree with the increased difficulties involved, but the reality is that most people gravitate into a sociology track in college precisely because they want a field that's less rigid with the methodology and math and the other things that make other subjects "hard". The result is a marked difference, and one of the reasons why the field is largely considered a joke among science.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Oh, I fully agree with the increased difficulties involved, but the reality is that most people gravitate into a sociology track in college precisely because they want a field that's less rigid with the methodology and math and the other things that make other subjects "hard". The result is a marked difference, and one of the reasons why the field is largely considered a joke among science.
Math and methodology make things easy. People make things hard.
Reality pff...
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Oh, I fully agree with the increased difficulties involved, but the reality is that most people gravitate into a sociology track in college precisely because they want a field that's less rigid with the methodology and math and the other things that make other subjects "hard". The result is a marked difference, and one of the reasons why the field is largely considered a joke among science.
Math and methodology make things easy. People make things hard.
It's not about "easy" or "hard". It's about how consistently a field uses scientific method to arrive at conclusions. And Sociology is way down at the bottom of the list of fields that even attempt to label themselves a science in this regard.
Quote:
Reality pff...
But does it bite?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
On rare occasions, I'm sure this does happen. Most of the time it's testing to the theory (and I'm using "theory" loosely here), or deriving the theory post-hoc from the testing (with follow up testing rarely occurring). To be good science one has to derive a test to disprove the hypothesis. Sociological experiments very very very rarely do this.
Based on what? Your lit review of journals over the last 20 years? Hahaha, just kidding. I'm done arguing this with you. Not because you don't know what you're talking about, that would preclude ever replying to one of your posts, but because there's really no credible argument for your point of view, even among ignorant idiots. It's so apparently the opposite that if you can't get there, I'm not going to help. Also, data shows providing evidence to your personality type just reinforces falsehoods. Peer reviewed data.
Based on what? Your lit review of journals over the last 20 years? Hahaha, just kidding. I'm done arguing this with you. Not because you don't know what you're talking about, that would preclude ever replying to one of your posts, but because there's really no credible argument for your point of view, even among ignorant idiots. It's so apparently the opposite that if you can't get there, I'm not going to help. Also, data shows providing evidence to your personality type just reinforces falsehoods. Peer reviewed data.
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.
gbaji wrote:
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Oh, I fully agree with the increased difficulties involved, but the reality is that The result is a marked difference, and one of the reasons why the field is largely considered a joke among science.
Math and methodology make things easy. People make things hard.
It's not about "easy" or "hard". It's about how consistently a field uses scientific method to arrive at conclusions. And Sociology is way down at the bottom of the list of fields that even attempt to label themselves a science in this regard.
Listen Bucko, you're the one who wrote ....most people gravitate into a sociology track in college precisely because they want a field that's less rigid with the methodology and math and the other things that make other subjects "hard". See that up above in the 'quote' box?
You wrote it in explanation as to why scientific method is used inconsistently in social sciences, and why the field is largely considered a joke.
I hear more and better jokes about engineers than sociologists.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
What is the difference between Mechanical Engineers and Civil Engineers? Mechanical Engineers build weapons; Civil Engineers build targets
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
What is the difference between Mechanical Engineers and Civil Engineers?
Both laugh at Gbaji calling himself an "Engineer"?
Well, I guess that wouldn't be a "difference".
Edited, Apr 10th 2013 8:21am by Jophiel
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I don't know about other schools, but all our sociology people had to at least pass a calculus class. Not that it means much; I certainly couldn't do much of that math these days. But yeah, you hear sociology get dismissed sometimes for doing studies that seem to do nothing but confirm obvious social trends. In a sense there's a reason for some of that, and interpreting results will always be harder when you can't do a hard control/treatment kind of experiment.
As an aside I sometimes joke that if you have to do a perfect experiment to find out something, you may as well not do it. Even if you somehow manage to pull it off, it's unlikely anyone else will be able to replicate it (I mean really, if you're going around confirming other people's results you aren't exactly a cutting edge scientist in the first place). If you're really onto something worthwhile it'll be so blatantly obvious you could have a monkey do your experiment and still get good results. I'm obviously not a rocket surgeon though.
Edited, Apr 10th 2013 1:55pm by someproteinguy
As an aside I sometimes joke that if you have to do a perfect experiment to find out something, you may as well not do it. Even if you somehow manage to pull it off, it's unlikely anyone else will be able to replicate it (I mean really, if you're going around confirming other people's results you aren't exactly a cutting edge scientist in the first place). If you're really onto something worthwhile it'll be so blatantly obvious you could have a monkey do your experiment and still get good results. I'm obviously not a rocket surgeon though.
Edited, Apr 10th 2013 1:55pm by someproteinguy
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Recent Visitors: 375
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (375)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- UK Asylumites, which class are you?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC