Concerning soft sciences

Is there a way to make them "harder"? Maybe develop some laws or unifying theories? Just so they seem less like bullshit? It just seems to me like you can produce any result you want by finding correlations between unrelated things or by other means in the soft sciences.

Other urls found in this thread:

wolframalpha.com/input/?i=integrate r dg
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

While studying economics one of the first lessons is to accept the social aspect of it and the limitations this implies.

As I have been thought and how I see it is that it can´t even dream of becoming a hard science, the problem is we are part of the subject of study. One example I heard a lot was that in hard sciences the fact we know and apply something doesn´t change it: water boiling temperature remains the same whether we know it and take andvantage of it or not. Whereas in economic phenomena the outcome can be changed by our understanding of it. When economists found correlation between inflation and unemployement and passed that info on to policy makers the decision they made based on those models led to an outcome that wasn´t forseen on paper (high inflation and high unemployement).

There are some alternative and interesting approaches currently developing but none of them tries to put economics at the level of a hard science at all

You probably don't even have an actual example of a social scientific conclusion that you find bullshit. In any case, if you found one, the method used wouldn't necessarily need to be made "more scientific" to be improved. Scientism is a misguided philosophy.

>Is there a way to make them "harder"?
NO.
>Maybe develop some laws or unifying theories?
Unlike particles humans are not consistent or maybe it's better to think of them having a significantly larger number of variable properties compared to particles.

Sure they can be predicted in some situations like crowd simulation for designing safe building evacuation but that is fairly simple compared to the entire economic system of the world.

cut public funding and let only the best study these

>Develop some laws or unifying theories
That's exactly what they need to stop doing. Go read Nassim Taleb's Antifragile and Black Swan.

>some brainlet will inevitably come in and claim that those dots are points

Every "science" where humans are the object/subject is not science : psycho, economics, medicine, politics, etc.

However, they can use real science (biology/chemistry for medicine or psycho, maths for economics, etc.).

Why aren't they science?

Economics isn't necessarily the study of humans either.

It's possible, but you'd have to give up the idea that your objects of study (individuals, societies, countries etc.) satisfy immutable "true" laws. Instead you'd describe them as processes that mutate the state of the world, and formalize laws that syntactically "represent" (more precisely: are isomorphic to) their observed "soft" behaviour. Church-Turing and all that.

Brainlet here. Just to confirm, this IS possible, right?
Because I’m just about ready to spend the entire fucking day figuring this out.

Take your pedophile comics back to .

...

Because Veeky Forumsfags insist on method over subject in determining scientificality.
Here the claim is that the scientific method cannot be purely applied to the social "sciences".

seems the less you know the better when it comes to social sciences. maybe economists should quit their jobs

then it's not science as

Easy as fuck

...

you dummy!
all i had to do is use big lines.

...

You didn't even visibly drew five of them.

That's 6.

...

EZ
Think outside the borders

you didnt end where you started dumb dumb

I did

No you didn'ted not

please, number each line in the order you draw them in and show me how the fuck you end up in the same place as you started

6 or a lifted pencil

Provide an actual example of a social scientific conclusion that isn't bullshit. There was a social science paper on /b/ not long ago that had fucking political proclamations in the abstract, and was overall devoid of anything legitimate.

I remember the solution to this being on Cyber-chase as a kid fuck
I think at one point you have to make a line extend outside the box one "space", do a 45 degree angle and come back

Clifford Geertz said that the Balinese cock fight was a reflection of Balinese manhood.

...

ANY user WHO CAN DECODE THE SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE WILL GET 3 BITCOINS

I AM NOT JOKING.

Some doodles show up when you ramp up the contrast.
Is that a square root sign or something?
I guess for the rest of the message I'd have to follow the lines you made and check if the sequence of the dots can be decoded or something but this is a clusterfuck and you've drawn it so carelessly it can be interpreted in any number of ways.

You're on the right track though, there's a specific order to the doodles in there.

Hint: They're letters drawn with sharp angles, no curves.

Jews did it.
Give me my prize.

Try again, user-kun.

??

Not sure if a 180°ed sigma or a 90°ed 9. Also the tiny dot in the middle, too small to even be read unless it's really just a dot
.

oooooh you're getting close.

Also, again, still no square root sign.

Srdg?
Strategic Research Development Grant?

Not an acronym either.

the idea that particles vs consciousness (and science vs soft science by proxy) are completely separate concepts, is a nomenclature absurdity that exists only for the sake of human classification and granularity.

I claim that it is abstractly absurd to taxify concepts such as these in general, as such categorical idealization places needless boundaries on things that encompass both drab factual data with knowledge that is built atop such data.

I don't purport to deny or call into question the agreed classification itself -- i'm saying that the distinction between these concepts is in our heads, hard sciences and soft sciences encompass the notion of knowledege - hard factual testable measurable data or not - yes i know that's the defining line, but just because there is testable method and data lacking, shouldn't make something less of a science

I can't find any vowels, but fromt he letters I found so far, b r d g s the only word that fits is "Bridges"

Or maybe just riges, otherwise the rotated 9 would have to be used for both b and g.

ridges*

doesn't say it's not allowed to stop a line early and finish it later

wolframalpha.com/input/?i=integrate r dg

Alright, I'm gonna feel bad if you waste too much of your time on a silly meme I whipped up out of boredom.

The answer is "Send Nudes".

where's the u?

It's that sharp-angled bowl shape in the middle, which I realized is too wide to be interpreted as a "u" only after I made the edit.

I'm a fucking brainlet. I did consider the rotated 9 to be "e", but then I was like, "wait, no, no way it can be mirrored"

I deserve to fucking die.

>I deserve to fucking die.
Sheesh, user, it was just a dumb scribble anyway.

Also >waste too much time
3 bitcoin would make this worthwhile even if it took me a week.

I was honestly thinking the answers would be more along the lines of this Had no idea someone would actually take it seriously.