How do we fix the "soft science" problem?
What can be done to salvage garbage fields like psychology, climatology, and economics so that they can be rigorous and finally able to be taken seriously?
Economics research is rarely reproducible, psychology research is crippled by self-reporting and the absence of any attempt at using the scientific method, climatology relies too heavily on consensus (a logical fallacy)
you don't fix them. they're shit.
>What can be done to salvage garbage fields like psychology, climatology, and economics so that they can be rigorous and finally able to be taken seriously?
It would take an entire change in the culture of psychology to fix it. The largest researches engage in the worst research practices, so what do you expect? Don't expect psychology to look like any form of science for a while.
Economics is ayy lmao worthy reading their axioms. It's fucking retarded, you can basically make up whatever you want, but most people just work within the standard semi- efficient market hypothesis most economists use, which is highly questionable considering the range of shit they use that one hypothesis to deduce.
Climatology has a long way to go with absolutely unacceptably wrong models, but it's not even comparable to something like psychology imo.
Find a way to make repeatable experiments and thats it
>Economics is ayy lmao worthy reading their axioms.
what economics axioms are these? don't even start writing some austrian praxeology stuff or i will poke in my feet.
Aggregation, the behavior of the aggregated economy (macro) is the sum of the behavior of individual agents (micro). The problem with this is that while it works in physics, human behavior could be much more non-linear in the aggregation.
How much do you actually know about these fields.
Problem with these threads is people answer that know nothing about these issues. Just think they have a voice when it is uninformed.
>What can be done to salvage garbage fields like ... climatology
>>/pol/
>another poster spooked by the /pol/ bogeyman
Honestly how much do you know about these fields? Why is climatology soft? Climatology uses chemistry, geology, and physics. Of course there is consensus, but that because evidence clearly points towards one thing.
>M-MUH SCIENTIFIC METHOD!1!1111!
thought we left this on the 20th century
economics can't be saved
The scientific method solves the demarcation problem.
Citation please.
Enough to shitpost on Veeky Forums.
Lol k. Bye baby. Why dont you set your monkey free.
Invent a mind reading device.
>climatology relies too heavily on consensus (a logical fallacy)
climatology serves exactly its purpose: scamming scientism cultists out of their money
>The chad kaczynski.
What's the mathematical definition of "economy"?
>astrology
>psychology
>climatology
that suffix is a warning in itself
S=D
It doesn't even work in physics, hence condensed matter is not "everything is sum of it's parts" otherwise most models could not replicate anything
Climatology is not a soft science.
>Climatology is not a soft science.
I don't know what terminology you prefer, but soft science is just a convenient misnomer anyway (soft sciences like climatology aren't actually "sciences").
>Climatology has a long way to go with absolutely unacceptably wrong models
try harder with your baits
truth hurts
>you can't study emergent complexity
The key is to eliminate (((subversive elements))) using them as tools for disseminating ideological propaganda. Psychology, Sociology and all the myriad other humanitarian fields could be tied into the hard sciences by deriving them from neuroscience, game theory and behavioural biology. But all the snowflakes here will flip their shit and pretend it's impossible to study humans because we're just so speshul.
>climatology
Maths + biology + physics + chemistry
>soft science
The thing is, while I personally think there is plenty enough evidence to believe in climate change, it doesn't cancel out the second part of the equation - the scammers and opportunistic politicians using it to fuck you over. Just because an issue is real doesn't mean the official solution is infallible.
In what fucking universe do you combat carbon emissions by replacing nuclear reactors with unrelieable wind parks? We could have been carbon free 20 years ago, if the SPS program had taken off.
Nobody pushing for carbon credits, solar and wind or starting scummy kickstarters gives a fuck about climate change. They are all just looking for ways to fleece you with it.
People are scared of Chernobyl and Fukushima and Three Mile Island and Windscale.
Even if we could go full nuclear, what do we do with the waste? Right now we just put it in permanent containers and drop it to the bottom of the ocean (similar to how we often handle garbage and toxic waste). We're actually pretty achaic when it comes to the environment.
A /pol/ tier post if I've ever seen one
A reddit tier post if I've ever seen one
You could just put it somewhere in the desert and let it chill. Would be thousands of years before it became even remotely a problem. Regardless, look at my post again. It's not nuclear, though nuclear works. We could have practically infinite energy by using solar power satellites, but we don't - because nobody gives a fuck.
Your government, all those loud ass NGOs - they don't want fucking solutions, they want a problem they can milk for as much as possible.
We can't efficiently beam energy through the atmosphere. That was Tesla's dream but it didn't work out.
>climatology
>soft science
Someone has no education in earth science.
People are scared for all kind things. E.g. they are also scared for climate change. However that doesn't mean nuclear power should be of the table. We have had various meltdowns with reactors and the fall out wasn't horrible. The damage it does is localized. However the damage global warming does is, the name says, global. With wind parks we are not getting there. Fusion is still in its infant stage. Nuclear is a good option. It produces enough power and it is reasonable clean.
Of course radioactive waste is difficult. You need to store it for a long time in a secure way and that is costly, but eventually we will develop save techniques to up cycle the waste for usages in other types of reactors. So the waste problem is only temporary. (I understand that you will always have an end product, which is unusable for energy production, But at least you can pull as much energy out of it as possible).
Tesla didn't want to bruteforce a coherent microwave beam down straight through the atmosphere, he wanted to transmit power along the surface.
NASA did a fuckload of studies about this concept back in the rose tinted space age, where they explore and address most issues you could come up with. Quite an interesting read.
ntrs.nasa.gov
>beaming microwaves from space to speed up global warming and burn anything caught in the death ray's path
I can already imagine the ecotards walking around with suicide vests.
>couple fractions of a kelvin
>death beam
Besides, if you can do powersats you can also do sunshades.
Store it in the desert
Whenever someone suggest sunshades as means to control climate it is met with variation of;
>it will destroy the environment because Gaia needs the Sun!
I actually experienced few weeks of being branded as a literal nazi kkk omnicidal big oil agent for suggesting using technological methods to fight climate change back at uni to some perfectly rational and intelligent green "friends" when the related topics came. Be careful.
Imagine the maintenance
>Beam receiver number two must be shut down for the semi annual bird carcass scraping
It creates jobs!
The creation of divisive factions to push special interests is going to destroy Western democracy.
Remove all statistical methods from science
Find a different paradigm other than quantum mechanics.
Also remove surveys or polls as a legitimate form of scientific measure.
All the "shit" coming from these feilds is based on medical model, significance, and probability.
They crunched the numbers, it would probably do fuck all to birds. Certainly no more than wind turbine blades or air traffic already do.
You know you're on the right track when the exxon mobil hippies start throwing non arguments like this around.
It doesn't even fucking compute. Energy in energy out, our entire fucking problem is that we are absorbing too much of it. Sunshades don't need to be something visible, just huge sheets of mostly transparent plastic that blocks less valuable chunks of the IR spectrum.
You know the atmosphere is opaque to microwaves for the most part. Can they really transmit enough energy this way?
It depends heavily on the frequency, but as you can see there are bands where transmission is almost complete.
Psychology is being btfo'd by neuroscience. Climatology is perfectly fine, and economics cant truly be formalized to the degree you want, no matter how hard you try.
>Economics research is rarely reproducible
>A 2016 study in the journal Science found that two-thirds of 18 experimental studies from two top-tier economics journals (American Economic Review and the Quarterly Journal of Economics) successfully replicated
federalreserve.gov
>We attempt to replicate 67 papers published in 13 well-regarded economics journals using author-provided replication files that include both data and code. Some journals in our sample require data and code replication files, and other journals do not require such files. Aside from 6 papers that use confidential data, we obtain data and code replication files for 29 of 35 papers (83%) that are required to provide such files as a condition of publication, compared to 11 of 26 papers (42%) that are not required to provide data and code replication files. We successfully replicate the key qualitative result of 22 of 67 papers (33%) without contacting the authors. Excluding the 6 papers that use confidential data and the 2 papers that use software we do not possess, we replicate 29 of 59 papers (49%) with assistance from the authors. Because we are able to replicate less than half of the papers in our sample even with help from the
authors, we assert that economics research is usually not replicable. We conclude with recommendations on improving replication of economics research.
>two-thirds of 18 experimental studies
>top-tier economics journals
If these are really the top Journals, then 12 out of 18 does really give me much confidence in the field desu.
Why is there no neutral/impartial group that attempts to maintain/uphold scientific integrity?
Climatology is in serious need of an overhaul, scientists knowingly promoting misinfo deserve to be severely punished
source on that graph
there's no hyperion sensors on satellites
yeah I know this shit bitch
This. All the way.
Deserts shift where they are and many people live in them. The Sahara was green for thousands of Years.
Nigga where are you gonna put sunshades that they aren't susceptible to micrometeoroid bombardment and other space weathering?
looks like someone hasn't heard of complexity theory
why don't you actually research the field you're trying to talk shit about?
Economics isn't a soft science, its a branch of applied mathematics
protip: there are lots of econ majors in the stats threads on Veeky Forums, you just can't tell because they study the same shit
>How do we fix the "soft science" problem?
For starters, stop calling it that. "Weak science" is a much better descriptor. "Pseudo-science" is also good in cases.
>Why do they call the quantum mechanics of molecules "chemistry?"
test
typical /pol/ poster
>Whenever someone suggest sunshades as means to control climate it is met with variation of;
>it will destroy the environment because Gaia needs the Sun!
You mean people pointed out to you that crops, plants, phytoplankton, the sources of all energy for all organisms require sunlight? Fucking hell you are delusional.
>another layman criticizing a perfectly viable method for fighting climate change
You're in the climate change doomsday cult. It's nothing to be ashamed of, many people are in it because they are delluded by their politicians.
At least take the time to read the Wikipedia page to confirm you have no idea what you're talking about
>In what fucking universe do you combat carbon emissions by replacing nuclear reactors with unrelieable wind parks?
This one.
>pyschology
neuroscience will take over as the scanning tech and its analysis get better
>climatology
better math modeling?
>economics
no hope...
Psychology is improving. It’s not as false as Veeky Forums makes it out to be. It’s just a younger science, and hasn’t had the time to mature like the other fields have. It’s moving in the correct direction.
Sociology on the other hand is basically just a tool of political indoctrination.
As for economics, we need to re-educate economic history. Modern monetarist economics is nothing more than propaganda use by central banks to make the ultra-rich richer. Authors such as Michael Hudson write about this critique.
I’m not sure what you consider wrong with climatology, care to specifiy?
>mfw psychology is being blown out of the fucking water as a extremely large sample of mental illnesses are being rooted to hormonal imbalances with recordable levels and treatments instead of throwing pills at people with horrific side effects until you find one that sticks
>tfw depression symptoms can be removed for 6 months by using TMS, without affecting appetite, sex drive or anything of the other million things that all the pills alter
Yes, and it can be even solved by taking electric lighter and bunching the volts in the head.
Machine is not the data.
for psychology, just empiricism the shit out of feelings.
gather shittons of self-reported moods and correlate them with shittons of brainscans. Eventually we'll know what a brain looks like when it feels "happy", "sad", "content", "active", etc.
how do central banks make the ultra rich richer explain
>sample size of 18
>psychology
I actually did a lot of this and it's even more of a joke of a field now that it ever has been.. Basically we need to separate it into sociology and neuroscience, because right now it's a bunch of circlejerking about the scientific method but it's applied to completely and utterly useless sociological topics. The actual neurological basis behind things is barely taught at all even though that's where psychology should be heading.
Well, if your models had any predictive capability or could align with historical data within a factor of 10, then you wouldn't be called faggots.
Keep in mind these are the same people who would model nuclear exchanges assuming every nuke was perfectly efficient, hit at the same time, and every strategic target was a sprawling city made of gasoline soaked rags.
You've never been good at modeling, and likely never will be.
Thermodynamics and econ are basically the same thing from a math standpoint.
The amount of Dunning-Kruger in this thread in regards to climate science is astounding. Profoundly ignorant and so confident, yet you clearly know not the first thing about climate science. Nothing but the same old fallacious "climate models are wrong" arguments without providing a single piece of evidence to back up your claim, simply because you're parroting some bullshit you read here on Veeky Forums or elsewhere without bothering to be skeptical or fact check it yourself.
Climatology is a science, you are incredibly misinformed and ignorant if you believe otherwise. The vast majority of scientists that study the atmosphere have backgrounds in theoretical physics, and Earth Science in general involves lots of chemistry (mineralogy / petrology / oceanography / hydrogeology / glaciology / volcanology / geochemistry), physics/maths (geophysics, seismology, geochronology, oceanography) , biology (ecology / paleontology / environmental sciences) as well as planetary geology and other related fields.
In fact no other scientific field requires knowledge of
It really pisses me off to see the amount of dunning kruger disrepect on this board for the Earth Sciences. You stupid fucks know NOTHING about it, yet you spout off that it's a "soft science" or "not a science."
Climatology involves most of the Earth science fields, for example glaciologists study... glaciers. Hydrogeologist oceanographers study fluvial systems including rivers, coastal plains, which is important in the study of impacts of climate change on coastlines. Atmospheric scientists study and collect data on the atmosphere and create the models which allow us to understand future climate changes. All of the models that atmospheric scientists use are based on REAL PHYSICS, hence why many atmospheric scientists have PhDs in fucking physics and mathamatics. You have climate scientists who study the past climate, which involves biology to study past organisms to understand the conditions they lived in, such as Foraminifera which we can understand the temperature of the ocean in the past by studying the isotopic ratios of carbon in their shells. They can study tree ring data and growth rates to create proxy data. They can study ice cores in antarctica and greenland to examine the gas content of trapped air bubbles to gain temperature and atmospheric data.
Maybe you stupid ignorant fucks should actually take the time to educate yourself instead of being ignorant fucks
>climatology
Kek, nice try slipping that one in, brainlet. Climatology is hard science and global warming is real. Deal with it.
>climatology relies too heavily on consensus (a logical fallacy)
"durr I'm a retard and what is the scientific method"
To be fair. Climatology is not quite as pure (/hard) as physics or chemistry.
volcanology
geology
biology
Seems like you owe someone an apOLOGY, bitch.
Every single board on Veeky Forums hates /pol/, including /pol/.
At best its applied physics/chemistry
It's purely an abstraction of physics, chemistry, and hard-biology. I see no reason why it's a soft science. There is no room for subjectivity involved in determining the results of actions. It doesn't make subjective judgements like if the Earth killing off the population is good or bad. People do that because it's obvious that it's bad.
Chemistry is applied physics. Climatology being applied physics doesn't make it soft science.
Some climatologists absolutely are working in soft science. If you knew some of the work being done by "climatologists", you wouldn't be so confident in what you are saying.
On the other hand, there are climatologists who are pretty hardcore, with solid backgrounds in physics doing research that is very heavy on the physics and math. They'd hesitate to call their work climatology though - instead referring to themselves as atmospheric scientists.
>climatology is an abstraction of physics
jesus christ
or oceanographers.
>poor predictor for the future
>poor predictor for the past
>N-n-no you're m-misinf-f-f-ormed.
WEW
>Chemistry is applied physics
Where does this meme come from? Chemistry is applied trial and error.
>instead of throwing pills at people with horrific side effects until you find one that sticks
that's psychiatry, not psychology
Probably also are the only people who truly understand Rick and Morty huh?
Psychology must push past to the understanding of logic gates and functions of individual neurons through physics and bio-chemistry. The brain is but a complex machine. Climatology needs more markers and sensitieve electromagnetic measuring equipment to garner more accurate predictions etc. Economics actually...just must base itself on fundamental scientific truth. It is a business that relies on natural law. The only measure of it "being fixed" is "success".
>Every single board on Veeky Forums hates /pol/, including /pol/.
I'm a big /pol/ fan, stop projecting your hatred onto everything.
>Well, if your models had any predictive capability or could align with historical data within a factor of 10, then you wouldn't be called faggots.
Why the homophobia?
>dunning kruger disrepect
cringe
>Climatology is hard science and global warming is real.
This.