How can sociology be a science if it subscribes to unfalsifiable ideas?

He wasn't even an economist.

Inform me of who and what I need to read

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#History
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Current_approaches

What part in particular proves that it is transphobic to declare someone with XY chromosomes to be a man even though they identify as a woman?

What the fuck are you talking about?

How have you moved from talking about the method of sociology and falsifiability to trannies and chromosomes?

Are you a fucking brainlet?

>BAWWW YOU'RE A FUCKING BRAINLET WAAAAHHH, I DONT WANT TO BE LOGICAL AND HAVE TO DO THA FALSIFIABILITY THING
Jesus christ, calm down. It was just a simple question.

It is a hot button issue in sociology. PhDs openly advocate these views and you could find a myriad of examples with a simple google search, views that are now being imposed on society.

washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/05/17/you-can-be-fined-for-not-calling-people-ze-or-hir-if-thats-the-pronoun-they-demand-that-you-use/

So what?

That was not our conversation.

You are so braindead and pathological that you actually think your original post was a justifiable reply lmao!

Nuke yourself, dork.

Because Marxism isn't a science, or an ideology. It's a religious cult

Rolled straight out of /pol/, son?

Are you Æutistic?

Oh wait, you are. Kill yourself

Epic samefag.

I've got our IP address loser, enjoy your DDOS.

>Falsifiability is outdated
This is what post-modernity is doing to people. You are the one who needs to put the things you read into context.

No, it is not outdated. If a theory is not falsifiable, you can trash it, because it is not scientific.

You have to differentiate between scientific principles and theories. E.g. evolution is a principle that generates theories. The principle is not falsifiable. However the theories you generate are. And it turned out the principle of evolution generated a lot of theories that were not proven wrong in the long run, so biology stuck to it.
Marxian materialism and his dialectic were not falsifiable. The theories those principles created were. And they were largely proven wrong. So the social sciences adapted. The problem is that now there is no one clear paradigm that dominates sociology, like there are is in biology, so opinions and approaches are all over the place, with some even rejecting science and scientific criteria like falsifiability all together.

>tl;dr
It does not matter if a scientific field subscribes to unfalsifiable ideas, as long as the theories it produces can be proven wrong.

Easily the best. Completely revolutionized human thought in his analysis of capitalism.

>Throwing a tantrum on a Chinese porcelain conference over someone identifying themselves as an Apache helicopter

>No, it is not outdated. If a theory is not falsifiable, you can trash it, because it is not scientific.

>I haven't kept up with the debate in science: the post

It has nothing to do with post-modernism, you braindead moron. Go back to where you came from.

It is a development out of years of debate.

Popper has been fucked many times, his critics have royally fucked him.

But do reply about how he is still relevant! Have you even read Kuhn or Feyerabend? Thought so!

Get nuked, dork!

>But do reply about how he is still relevant!
It remains relevant because falsifiability is a standard criteria for any scientific theory. If you actually studied STEM instead of arts, you would know that.

>ad hominems
>name dropping
Wew, lad.

>Darwin has been fucked so many times, his critics have royally fucked him. That means evolution is a lie.
>The saints who wrote the Bible on the other hand has never been proven wrong! Falsifiability is a outdated!
Go to bed Mac.

dumb millenial

I know that episode was just a joke, but didnt Mac have a pretty reasonable argument?

People like you are the reason we're stuck with useless shit like string theory.

Thanks for proving you don't know what you're talking about.

Try picking up a "book".

A lot of the things in Science can't really be proven. Many cases because it's impossible.

You are claiming sociology is a science even though it is unfalsifiable. Presumably you need some other method of determining the validity of a proposition besides the subjective views of academic authorities.

I will take the time to bend over backwards and spell things out to make things easier for you.

Here is an actual PhD dissertation about how feelings were hurt in summer camp. The feelings of grown adult staff members.

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14927713.2013.856100

Explain why the vast majority of sociology academics are not only in complete agreement with it but also believe it is profound and only someone with a PhD could have accomplished it. This will prove sociology is a science and I will admit I was wrong giving you an ego boost.

>anyone who disagrees is /pol/ or mad
nah, just stating facts and having a discussion like everyone else on Veeky Forums

ITT: 1 sociologist gets torn to shreds because everyone else realize that his discipline is an unscientific Marxist mess

Marxism is science. If you don't understand dialectical materialism then don't write about Marx.

I mean it's like 2017 duh

>It does not matter if a scientific field subscribes to unfalsifiable ideas, as long as the theories it produces can be proven wrong.
What did he mean by this?

>[Loaded Question]
>[Naive response that assumes the presuppositions of [Loaded Question]]
>[Long series of trollish non sequiturs]
>[Repeat]

There are plenty of fields that are based on unfalsifiable ideas. For example evolutionary psychology and their idea of "mind". That does not mean that they are not doing science.

Yes that is the essence of this board and what makes it fun.

Yeah, bad science.

>Because Falsifiability is outdated.

Wat

ITT: People 50 years behind the research in epistemology and scientific theory.

Next episode, people praising logical empiricism.

>research in epistemology

Scrutiny is not allowed in sociology so it has become full of pseudoscience.

It doesn't matter if they take up good causes like feminism or social work. Curing cancer is a good cause, but if a cancer drug doesn't work then criticizing it is the right thing to do. Criticizing a good cause doesn't hurt it and doesn't necessarily mean you oppose it.

They argue sociologists can't perform experiments unlike scientists, however astronomy and paleontology doesn't have that luxury either yet they still maintain high standards of proof.

They look at things like the correlation between crime and poverty, however things like this are so obvious you don't really need a sociology degree to find it.

Apparently you have to read like 30 books on postmodernism and other questionable topics to understand why they don't have to be rational. While I don't understand many difficult things like special relativity, I can often understand the first few things you need to learn, see the experiments you can do for evidence and see scientists all over the world supporting it. With sociology nearly every step of the way there appears to be serious flaws and any criticism is met with a flurry of petty logical fallacies to defend it. Humility doesn't mean believing you are always wrong. At a certain point I have to wonder if an apparent flaw is due to my lack of understanding or because it is actually a flaw.

There really is no excuse. Apart from their mediocre knowledge of statistics (which if I were cynical would assume exists solely to improve their skills in cherry picking, confirmation bias, filibustering and making appeals to authority) there is nothing logical or scientific about sociology. It is an obvious spooky scam like a multi-marketing scheme which has wormed its way into academia.

youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo