>let me give you some stats which prove I'm right >"haha, cute, you didn't even take note of the context. It's always the context/environment/upbringing which brought about and influenced that ;)." >but how to even measure this? how to observe or even notice this 'influence' of this thing you call a 'context'. >"haha, scientism, so cute ;)"
Why are the social sciences absolute shit at explaining anything? It's the woo-woo of time its mysterious alchemical workings on our thetans ( the "u r not u" meme ). Great stuff dudes, but will not read again.
Wyatt Adams
The onion did not make me cry, because I know that the onion is one hundred percent wrong. :^)
Colton Rogers
One true distinctiction is this, people that think they're discovering mathematics buried in the universe are mental cases. People recognising that they're creating/inventing maths are patrician af. The former are the sperglytics.
Benjamin Taylor
>implying that environmental influence and upbringing haven't been quantitatively measured in a million different ways
You're dumb, your OP is dumb, and you should get off Veeky Forums with your bullshit.
Thomas Harris
Scientism is what made me drop out of my PhD physics program. It's dull and depressing and people involved in the scientific academy are so obsessed with their own self-importance that they can't see anything beyond its walls.
Camden Gomez
>two stars would no longer be two stars if humans didn't exist
Jeremiah Campbell
How do you measure how many times a child has been beaten? The length of time that the child was abuse for? Measure the circumference of each bruise a child gets for x amount of time? Sociology can't even replicate its studies 99% of the time, much less Psychology.
Noah Price
>doesn't understand in the unapproachable thing-in-itself
Camden Taylor
>dats becuz stuff changes all deh time, like Lacan said "change is a necessity of the narrative as imposed through libidinal investment"
Easton Morris
>I can't put it in a lab and measure it so it doesn't exist
I don't even care about social sciences, but you're fucking dumb. Take this garbage to Veeky Forums or somewhere else.
Charles Nguyen
Are you trying to say that things that can't be measured don't exist?
Levi Campbell
More continental babble.
Alexander Gomez
>you must believe me when I tell you my nurture-crap that legitimizes my political agenda >prove my point? omg current year hello? go to your echo chamber right now
Bentley Barnes
You honestly believe that if you beat a child their entire life it has zero effect on them?
Parker Cook
There have been a million studies published, you're just choosing to ignore them because you're an insane person or a troll.
Zachary Anderson
>Why are the social sciences absolute shit at explaining anything?
Isn't it sort of obvious? I mean, you say it yourself -- it's simply not nearly as easy to observe social reality with empirical methods as it is to observe material reality with those same methods. It is not as if you can put a social relation under a microscope, or observe the exercise in power in a society as the flow of power through a circuit board.
Nor can empiricism say anything at all about subjectivity, i.e., about subjects as subjects. Insofar as society is made up of a bunch of subjects who aren't just a bunch of unthinking robots but actually experience reality through their own subjective consciousness, the scientific method simply doesn't apply to it.
So in short social science is absolute shit, and will continue to be absolute shit as long as it pretends it is a science. Your own stupidity, OP, which you accurately name scientism, is assuming that because social reality cannot be measure in neatly universal units that it is therefore "woo-woo" nonsense. I don't know how anyone could deny that social reality exists, I don't know how it could be refuted anymore than the claim that language doesn't exist, or morality, or mathematical truth, or anything else that's not directly reducible to empirical observation of material reality, but I'll accept that you do seem to genuinely believe it.
Lucas Flores
pretty sure Kant's widely read in the analytic tradition, as well. some even consider him the beginning of that tradition.
Austin Wright
yes because there are no laboratory controlled studies. until liberal cucks get over their aversion to locking children in laboratories and beating them regularly throughout their childhood, we can accurately say that there is not evidence that it is wrong to beat your child.
Juan Jones
>assuming that because social reality cannot be measure in neatly universal units that it is therefore "woo-woo" nonsense The OP never assumed that. Are you illiterate? He said so-called social SCIENCE is woo-woo nonsense, incapable of explaining anything, which is true. He didn't say social phenomena don't exist. What would it even mean to say that?
Landon Hill
...
Wyatt Sullivan
no. he said:
>It's the woo-woo of time its mysterious alchemical workings on our thetans
which is quite obviously claiming that the object of study of social science (i.e., social reality) is comparable to the object of "mysterious alchemical working on out thetans."
if you didn't know, thetans aren't real.
Joshua Hall
You retards claim the "self" isn't real either. What is this that I'm talking to then? So you're really not that much different.
Matthew Taylor
I believe you have confused social scientists with Zen Buddhists. Easy mistake.
Grayson Williams
No, pretty sure all the structuralists ( who get a hard on when you say the word "context" ) claim that the concept of the self is a fake.
Jason Cruz
"Social sciences" is not Veeky Forums, take this to
Jason Roberts
no I'm saying all social phenomenon do not exist, you can't even measure it, how could they
Bentley Nguyen
Language is a social phenomenon, so you wouldn't even be able to understand this post if you were right.
Jeremiah Wilson
structuralism? like linguistic structuralism? that french stuff? that's definitely not social science. it doesn't even claim to be a science.
also it might be better to actually read some source material instead of just going off of what one guy you got into a debate w/ once says on the internet. you sound very confused, I don't think too many structuralists are concerned with this bit you're on about the self being fake.
Angel White
Can you measure language? No? Then fuck off.
Hunter Foster
#FUKKENDESTROYED
Adam Smith
Post-structuralism is a huge fucking deal in the social sciences. You can't be in a lecture hall and not hear Foucault.
Wyatt Walker
but you can measure language empirically. for example, the word "science" is about 20 millimeters long, and varies in weight depending on the paper it is printed on.
Luis Thompson
That's not language, sperg.
David Gomez
>equating the English language with the word "science".
My sides
Andrew Collins
autism: the post
Zachary Young
you are confusing terms. social science is sometimes used haphazardly as a catch-all for sociology, especially by universities when naming departments, but within sociology, especially the more theoretical, non-scientific corners, the term specifically refers to those aspects of sociology which are empirical, scientific, etc, like the Chicago school for e.g. Sociologists who study Foucault (who himself was fairly critical of empirical sociology) in any great measure probably wouldn't call themselves scientists of any sort.
Also, and while I'm no big fan of poststructuralism, you're vastly overstating its influence outside of the humanities. The great majority of American social sciences departments are made up of people doing statistical and empirical research more in line with the various American schools of sociology.