What is science?

What's systematicity then? And can't there be systematic pseudosciences?

Why do humanities and artsfags try to leech off of the good name and achievements of science by rebranding themselves as social """"sciences""""?

It makes my blood boil that they dilute and degrade the prestige of science by grafting themselves to it

Is that from some monstergirl anime?
It lacks a nose so got to be some monster.

Observation is crucial to science.

No observation, no science.

And observing models is not observation.

All humans inherently recognize the value of rationality (even if they may not always think and act rationally) so they do what they can to justify whatever irrational beliefs they hold with the language and seeming of rationality.

Any time anyone ever tells you "This such and such thing BECAUSE... " they are tacitly admitting that rationality and logic is the best way to convince you. The feature to watch out for is that they thing after the BECAUSE might not make sense.

Wrong. Neither psychology nor economics nor astronomy are science, because they rely solely on observation.

Science requires controlled experiments i.e. closed systems that can be manipulated and measured. Otherwise you cannot draw justifiable conclusions, and thus produce knowledge.

Only Chemistry, Biology and Physics are science.

Humanities and the Arts aren't the same thing as social sciences.

Justification is the central endeavor of all philosophy, which both the natural sciences and the humanities are part of.

Have you heard of retrospection? It is a common misconception that experiments have to be about the future.

From Nichijou

...

Why do you require controlled experiments to be able to draw justifiable conclusions? Why can't you draw justifiable conclusions from the triangulation of observations?

>retrospection
Meme made up by fields that cannot conduct proper experimentation.

The flaw with 'retrospection' is that you can make any data match your theory if you rationalize it hard enough. This is how Popper demonstrated that Marx and Freud were not conducting science.

You've got to lay your cards down on the table before the data comes out, otherwise your biased mind will just confabulate an explanation for how the data totally fits your favorite theory

Bias. The emphasis is not so much on the 'controlled' as on the 'measurable'. Controlled experiments let you acquire numerical data, which you can perform objective statistical tests on. There's no mucking about with "I believe my data is significant". Your data is either p

>You've got to lay your cards down on the table before the data comes out,
You do exactly that in a proper retrospection.

For example, you have some astronomical theories that suggest that around coordinates XYZ should be visible a star A. You come up with some parameters that you deem to be sufficient proof. You then conduct the retrospection and if the parameters match, you declare the theory to be a provisional success.
You don't just dig around for any data.

Furthermore, ad-hoc explanations happen in (bad) controlled experiments all the time, too, so this is no problem specific to retrospection.

>Controlled experiments let you acquire numerical data, which you can perform objective statistical tests on.
You can do that in observational studies, too. I don't see why that should be something specific to controlled experiments.

Data is unreliable unless it is controlled.

Social sciences do not claim to be exact sciences but to have à scientifical reasoning. There is no other field in which you can find as much work on epistemology, self criticism, humility and reflexivity

In addition to that, fields like epidemiology also don't claim to be exact sciences, yet no one makes a fuzz about those.

One just has to accept that the study of complex, chaotic systems such as epidemics and societies, rather than sleek and simple systems found in physics will inevitably lead to a lower degree of precision. Precision also shouldn't be confused with replicability. A science can be imprecise, but still reliable.

>humility is a trait of science

Through the acceptance of the knowledge gained only being provisional, it is.

>t buttmad gnostic

You can control data in observational studies, too.

See: case-control studies

>to have à
>à
uw0tm8

You can further reduce it if you like, and I would.

I merely wanted to interject that if you cannot observe something, you cannot perform any scientific tests on it.

Scientific method.

Humanities do not utilize the scientific method. They run on feelings rather than peer reviewed evidence.

I don't understand what that is even supposed to mean, to "run on feelings".

Do you think that a linguist, when he wants to compare how children in different cultures refers to their mothers, just looks at a child and thinks to himself "I feel that this child would say >>mamatanuk

If you employ the scientific method in all of your studies, then you are not practicing humanities. That's what separates the two.

I disagree. You don't need observations for the analysis of a priori concepts such as those in mathematics and logic, but I count both as sciences.

>Defines science using the word scientific
>Unironically

Define 'Scientific'.

According to your definition, which you're attempting to justify by presupposing your conclusion to be correct.

Math is Science

said nobody ever

You should honestly learn a second language. You'd be surprised by how differently people from other cultures think about all sorts of concepts you think to be self-evident, including the concept of "science".

>Other cultures do things in an incredibly stupid way
No wonder they never made it to the moon.

I'm actually German. You would be scoffed at here if you said that mathematics wasn't a science.

You know who else would scoff at you? The man whom you owe for getting Americans to the Moon: Wernher von Braun.

It's quite tasty.

Kind of funny but it generally means that you figure out things using ways that seem to reduce bias, such as the scientific method and experimental design

They are agreed upon to be the best we have if we must observe and can't just math/logic the whole way

You are free to not believe in science if you think this is unsatisfying, just stay out of our way while we do the work

>english is not my mother tongue
>mobile phone autocorects
> who care?

Theology is a science.

Critical theory is a science.
All other sciences are subsets of critical theory

Friendly reminder that "Science" makes absolutely no sense and that Karl Popper aka le falsification man is a retard.

Falsificationism is no different to unjust belief, you can try to falsify a claim but how do you falisfy the methods taken to falsify the claim?

infinite reductionism, checkmate atheists and sciencefags, fucking kill yourselves

This. You can surely demonstrate an A organism react like B on a C situation.

You cant do that with humans, thats why social sciences suck balls. How can they even compete against the replicable sciences bull?

Weak bait. Have your you

Economics is a social science technically, would you do rid of that? fucking idiot

Is there anything that doesn't fall under humanities? What a fucking joke of a "field"

Gimme dat salt.
modern neoliberal le ebin chicago economics is a pseudoscience because it makes major asumptions that more than often fail to predict results that would make a highschool teacher puke in horror

In fact, its not science at all, it just make predictions from trends

Prove me wrong leftypol faggot, i dare you i double dare you

>he thinks science claims to predict things

lmao, you don't even know the methods of the field you're defending

what is "leftypol"

>Be scientist
>Observe A phenomena
>Make small scale experiments trying to replicate A or part of it
>Make model B of system A. It predicts and models how A behaves with 80% accuracy
> other Veeky Forumsentist master race man finds it lame and develops another model C worth 90% of accuracy
> this model works since it is based on physical constants and other models with similar and higher accuracies, else they will be disproven and work on them

> be (((economist)))
> observe a data A and recopilate info
> make a model B based on biased personal experience and agendas
> model fails miserably to even help a single country
> economist blames it on the bases and shills to import refugees
> another economist proposes a model C that disregards all previous models, still fails to predict basic things and only on controlled systems
> blame it on the state
> a wild communist (((economist))) appears
> that creature does not even care about method
> fuck everyone's life up to this day

Everything related to human activity (besides the purely biological) are (((humanities))). They would be ok if they didnt try to shill for the social/humanities studies are science meme

Its the fucking unpredictabilty (or sheer complexity) of human actions and decisions on the most basic levels that fuck them brutally up so hard Le corbusier would invent another architecture style to represent their sad low energy autistic failure

I really mean it. Deal with it.

Oh my all this attention, let me fap furiously to yet another bait with weak punctuation usage

>want to push my agenda
>build strawmen of the methodology of other sciences

Or how about this:
>be economist
>observe phenomena A
>make small scale experiments trying to replicate A or part of it
>make model B of system A that predicts and models how A behaves with 80% accuracy
>other scientist finds it lame and develops another model C that yields 90% accuracy
>this model works since it is based on physical constants and other models with similar and higher accuracies, else they will be disproven and work on them

Example: Mice and Markets

summary:
science.sciencemag.org/content/340/6133/707
full text:
gtcenter.org/Archive/2013/Conf/Szech1612.pdf

Where did my punctuation go awry? Those sentences are perfectly fine.

According to those criteria (making assumptions that "often" [how often?] yield low prediction precision), many established and all new sciences, which tend to have unreliable predictions, would be pseudoscience.
Neurology? Pseudoscience. Nano material sciences? Pseudoscience. Medicine? Pseudoscience.

Especially medicine, which has lower replication rates than psychology.

That's exactly what science does you fucking idiot
That's what a model is
That's what a theory is

This. Mathematics are basically just a matter on who screams the loudest.

This thread is awful. Much worse than old Veeky Forums philosphy trolling.

Let's be clear, this thread is a question about the philosophical foundations of science. If you aren't very familiar with how modern science is practiced, you probably need to learn more. If you aren't familiar with the general state of epistemology in philosphy, you need to learn more. If you don't understand why science is necessarily a branch of philosphy, you need to learn more.

Most real examples of science are pretty easily separable from non-science. But, the scope of possible behaviors and conjectures that humans could conceivably do and make will not describe some sudden *point* where non-science becomes science.

Models and theories are not synonymous with predictions. See David Deutch. Models and theories are conjectural EXPLANATIONS that will include predictable results.

For example, the theory of relativity is a metaphysical claim about the nature of reality. It INCLUDES physical equations and models that make testable predictions. But those predictions are a consequence of understanding the model.

>But, the scope of possible behaviors and conjectures that humans could conceivably do and make will not describe some sudden *point* where non-science becomes science.
Isn't that a continuum fallacy?

>le (((jew lines))) meme
Back to /pol/ with you

I am a model.

Research scientific method. Non science doesn't exist and pseudoscience is a lie.

So the chicken came before the egg?

Yeah, they don't like social science on Veeky Forums not the last time i tried anyway

discussing the definition and parameters of science is a philosophical topic

Reminder that falsificationism can neither prove, nor falsify itself.

This.

and this:

Reminder that actual scientists don't give two fucks about the bullshit word games of some basement dweller and use falsification anyway

>Reminder that actual scientists don't give two fucks about the bullshit word games of some basement dweller and use falsification anyway

>scientists still follow falsificationism and the problems of the philosophy of science were discussed by einstein decades ago

HUR DUR SCIENTISTS SHOULDN'T QUESTION THEIR METHODS

Scientists should, but that's because they actually get off their ass and work on scientific problems. Basement dwelling retards like you shouldn't, because all you offer is faggy word games, probably because you're too lazy to do actual science and just bitch on the sidelines

Eh what? How is attacking the idea of falsificationism a word game? Does that make faslificationism a word game?

Go ahead and refute the point I made about falsificationism not only being contradictory but also unable to reconcile itself with methods which preceed results.

Go ahead

>Go ahead and refute the point I made about falsificationism not only being contradictory but also unable to reconcile itself with methods which preceed results.

Why should I? I don't give a fuck about the shit you spout, nor does anyone in science.

Maybe your ramblings would be more impressive if you actually used them to solve some previously unresolved problems and actually contribute some thing to the world. Go on, wow me, and use your mumbo-jumboology to solve some unresolved problem in physics or something. Also, until you can actually do something useful with your boring language games, shut your fucking mouth and let the grown ups do the important stuff, ok?

spaz attack

>shut your fucking mouth and let the grown ups do the important stuff, ok?

Haha! Ok buddy

>Why should I? I don't give a fuck about the shit you spout, nor does anyone in science.
Epistemological problems are very important even for the practical plane in science. After all, if you have 10 different theories to investigate into, how are you going to decide which ones to fund? Should we fund all the research programs, even if there's absolutely no plausability for 9 of them to yield something?

You may at that point say "we're only going to fund those that will yield knowledge", but how are you going to decide which ones those are, without an epistemological foundation to measure the progress by?
You can't. That's why you need to do it.

>to solve some unresolved problem in physics
Without epistemology, you wouldn't know which problems in physics are unsolved and which are solved.

A scientist that has never thought about the epistemological foundation of what he does is no scientist. He's merely a person that imitates the motions of science.

Reminder that astrologists don't give a fuck about methodology and use star signs to make mad dosh anyway.

Who came up with model thinking?

It's anything you want it to be. Anything goes.

Science[nb 1][2]:58[3] is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.[nb 2]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

nigga you what

the system is included in the result ie. "i went outside and looked at ten million dogs which were all black therefore i conclude all dogs are black"

vs. "god spoke to me and it was revealed that all dogs are black" (the method for making this happen was shrooms but this is not mentioned because i am not doing science)

both are equally wrong but in the first example you can look at the method and conclude the strength of the assertion

"God spoke to me and revealed that all dogs are black. God can be trusted. Therefore all dogs are black."

How is that any less systematic, according to your criteria? The system is in the conclusion.

BASED Feyerabend!

>Hard Marxist Leftypol liking Chicagoites.

You know it's basically a libertarian philosophy.

just for fun

What does "hangup" mean?