Posted on 08/24/2018 2:02:42 AM PDT by cartan
Very good
At the outset, “social science” isn’t really science in any meaningful sense. It’s not even a ‘soft” science.
For Progressives, Marxist Communists, and Socialists, ‘science’ is the revelation of Ultimate Questions regarding the origin of cosmos, life, man, and all else. This is why Marxist Communism was described as scientific socialism. It’s their religious worldview.
Some people are logical decision makers and say “I’ll believe it if In see it. Some people are emotional decision makers and can only see it if they believe it.
This is why love is blind. People who are in love with themselves are blind to their faults!!!
Liberals love science when they can use it, distort it, or just conjure I up out of nothing. Their whole “peer” review process is nothing more than assumed consent amongst likeminded people. It’s the truly technical studies that make this more difficult because liberals don’t like contravening findings that put their near religious social scientific belief structures to the test.
The scientist community relies on federal funding, they drank the cool aide the rats and their criminal agenda were offering or the unemployment line,
Physics and math fit the Bible very well. No conflict for me.
>>It’s not science they distrust so much as scientists — especially ones in more nebulous, activism-driven fields like ecology or sociology.
Jerry Pournelle called these the Voodoo Sciences many years ago, and was quite dismissive of them, and for good reasons.
https://www.jerrypournelle.com/science/voodoo.html
The first part of the above was written in 1988, so the issues with so-called “Science” in these areas have been known for a few decades.
They blinded me with science.
It’s not science. It’s institutional Lysenkoism.
As others have already pointed out, sociology is not science. Its publications are rampant with descriptions of “studies” that exist only to confirm pre-conceived biases.
Sociology could provide important insights into the roots of various societal trends and so forth, but that is not what it is used for. Its practioners use it to “prove” utopian ideas that any person with a rudimentary understanding of human behavior and economics would recognize as unworkable and destructive.
>>The scientist community relies on federal funding, they drank the cool aide the rats and their criminal agenda were offering or the unemployment line,<<
Deep State Federal “climate change” funding comes with a conclusion for “researchers” to confirm.
The funding scientific methodology: draw your lines, then plot your points.
“cIt’s not science I don’t trust - it’s the scientists”
Such as the National Marine Fisheries Service “scientists” that fraudulently concocted millions of pounds of red snapper landings that never happened but was used to collapse the southeaster stock in their computer. This fraudulent data was used as a basis for a total closure of the fishery many years ago and it remains closed today.
This information was presented to Congress in a Fisheries Sub Committee Hearing...NOTHING has been done about it.
The ocean is brimming with red snapper and our fishermen can’t touch them...however you can buy all the Vietnamese Catfish you can eat (BASA).
The mistake is equating sociology with any form of “science”.
My ideas are so good that have to be true.
It would be a waste of time and money to do the research to prove my theory.
It will be cheaper just to write up the results the way I know that they will turn out.
Easy peezy
Richard Feynman had a hierarchy of the sciences (and one non-science):
Physics is applied mathematics.
Chemistry is applied physics.
Biology is applied chemistry.
Psychology is a bunch of witch doctors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.