|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
 Posted - 07/01/2004 : 09:00:41
|
The “scientific method” forms the heart of legitimacy for the natural sciences. This method consists in assembling evidence, combining that evidence with assumptions, and analyzing the combination in a logical manner to develop a hypothesis. This hypothesis is the bases for predicting what should happen in certain conditions if this hypothesis is true. Evidence is assembled to test the validity of the hypothesis. If the evidence indicates that the hypothesis has not been proven to be invalid then other predictions based on the hypothesis are used to construct additional experiments to further test its legitimacy.
The validity of a hypothesis can only be determined by empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is obtained by observation alone. Scientific observation can only show that a hypothesis has not yet been proven to be illegitimate. The empirical evidence derived from a test of a hypothesis proves, not that the hypothesis is true, but only that the hypothesis has not been proven to be untrue. Science does not deal in absolute truth but only in probability.
The reality of natural science is matter. When the scientific method is applied to the social sciences the test for validity is society. The reality for social science is society.
Matter, the reality studied by the natural sciences is essentially stable and non-changing. The truth of natural science discovered a hundred years ago is unchanged today. Such is not the case for the social sciences.
The social scientist is attempting to build a theory about a moving target and the social scientist is riding on this moving target while constructing the theory.
Truth is that which conforms to reality. The above provides evidence why the truth of natural science is stable and the truth of social science—the science of human affairs—is unstable.
Humans and not nature construct social conditions. The society in which the social theorist lives and of which she derives her present understanding of truth is a recent construct. It was constructed by those with prejudices, false assumptions, biases etc. that permeate her consciousness.
Truth in matters of human affairs is very slippery. The student of Critical Thinking is better able to deal with such a situation than is an individual who thinks he is a critical thinker. The Big Leaguer is a Critical Thinker the sandlot player is a critical thinker.
Does this mean that truth, in matters of human affairs, is subjective without any objective content?
Does social reality make truth and the theorist only brings theory and truth into harmony?
It seems that theory creates reality and is shaped by reality. Does social theory have any claim on logical truth
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2004 : 11:32:35 [Permalink]
|
You were going along fairly well until:quote:
Matter, the reality studied by the natural sciences is essentially stable and non-changing. The truth of natural science discovered a hundred years ago is unchanged today. Such is not the case for the social sciences.
And then things pretty much fell to pieces, albeit slowly at first.
About one hundred years ago, an article appeared which made the bold prediction that within 40 years, every physics question would have an answer. Since then, we've seen the rise of relativity, quantum mechanics and chromodynamics, the A-bomb, lasers, transistors, etc.. Physics is still a widely-researched field.
Within the last 100 years, we've also seen Plate Tectonics overturn the idea of a stable Earth (a scientific "truth" until the early 1900s), more and more fine-tuning of the speed of light (each more-accurate measurement falsifying the "truth" of those before it), etc..
The fact that scientific "truth" changes over time is what makes science an excellent way to discover things. It does not stagnate.quote:
The social scientist is attempting to build a theory about a moving target and the social scientist is riding on this moving target while constructing the theory.
If a natural scientist is not made of - and affected by - matter, I'll eat my hat.quote:
Truth is that which conforms to reality.
Yeah, since reality is true, what's true must be reality. Not terribly helpful.quote:
The above provides evidence why the truth of natural science is stable and the truth of social science—the science of human affairs—is unstable.
Only the implied part about how human society can change unpredictably, whereas the "laws" of natural sciences aren't "moving targets." To put it another way, this could have been worded much, much better.quote:
Humans and not nature construct social conditions.
There are many species in the world with a social structure. Attributing "society" to humans only is not a good idea.quote:
The society in which the social theorist lives and of which she derives her present understanding of truth is a recent construct. It was constructed by those with prejudices, false assumptions, biases etc. that permeate her consciousness.
As does the world of the natural theorist.quote:
Truth in matters of human affairs is very slippery.
You'd have to ask a sociologist. There are plenty of them, so it's not an impossible field of knowledge.quote:
The student of Critical Thinking is better able to deal with such a situation than is an individual who thinks he is a critical thinker. The Big Leaguer is a Critical Thinker the sandlot player is a critical thinker.
And now - suddenly and without warning - we have an undefined distinction between "true" critical thinkers, and "false" critical thinkers. This is really a non-sequitor from the prior ideas and sentences, and also the following ones.quote:
Does this mean that truth, in matters of human affairs, is subjective without any objective content?
And now we seem to be back towards the original train of thought. The answer is "no," just ask a sociologist.quote:
Does social reality make truth...
By definition, yes.quote:
...and the theorist only brings theory and truth into harmony?
That's what happens in the natural sciences, too. The dichotomy you offered up has vanished.quote:
It seems that theory creates reality and is shaped by reality.
Now where the hell did you get the ability to jump to that conclusion? It doesn't follow. Theory is obviously shaped by reality, as that's the reason we have theories. Bad scientists try to mash reality into their theories, whether they be social scientists or natural scientists.quote:
Does social theory have any claim on logical truth [sic]
If properly done, social science has just as much claim to reflect reality as does natural science. The difference is that the underlying reality can change in social sciences, and the shorter-term theories will, of necessity, change more rapidly than longer-term theories. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2004 : 16:08:46 [Permalink]
|
Newton's paradigm lasted 250 years before some modification was necessary. It continues today and I suspect for a great deal longer. Darwin's paradigm has been going 160 years and I expect it will do so much longer. The paradigms of science have very long lives. The fact that new paradigms are added and are of long live fortifies my statement about the stability of the natural sciences. The point is that the theories of natural science are long lasting and the theories of the social sciences enjoy no comprable longgevity.
Now you are funning me. You of course recognize the point that humans are far different than non-humans and inanimate matter. Humans act as a reflective object The natural sciences deal primarily with non reflective objects.
The definition of truth is conformity to reality. Although you recognize all of the things I say in this posting does not mean that many readers do not. When you see me make statements that you already know please recognize the fact that many readers are not as informed as you.
My posting is perhaps not as clear as it might be.
If social science is circular as my posting hinted then social science does not enjoy logical truth.
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2004 : 17:09:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The point is that the theories of natural science are long lasting and the theories of the social sciences enjoy no comprable longgevity.
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle. All over 2000 years dead, and their theories of social science and philosophy are still well known and taught.
Immanuel Kant, dead 200 years this year. His theories and philosophy are still known and taught.
René Descartes, dead 350 years, still known and taught.
Confucious and Bhudda, dead 2500 years or so, still known and taught.
Diogenes, dead in 325BCE wise enough to impress Alexander the Great, philosophy still know and taught.
David Hume, dead in 1776 AD, philosophies still known and taught.
Hippocrates, who's oath from 2400 years ago is still the standard doctors are held to today.
Friedrich Nietzsche, dead now for 104 years, philosophy still known and taught.
John Locke, dead 300 years this year, who's works inspired our current form of democratic and capitalistic government.
Voltaire, dead in 1778AD, still known and taught.
I'd say the theories of the social sciences have a longer lifespan than those from the physical sciences. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2004 : 19:19:15 [Permalink]
|
coberst wrote:quote:
Newton's paradigm lasted 250 years before some modification was necessary. It continues today and I suspect for a great deal longer. Darwin's paradigm has been going 160 years and I expect it will do so much longer. The paradigms of science have very long lives. The fact that new paradigms are added and are of long live fortifies my statement about the stability of the natural sciences. The point is that the theories of natural science are long lasting and the theories of the social sciences enjoy no comprable longgevity.
Now, we're back to the argument which was happening in the other thread. You've made a blanket generalization about the social sciences, without a shred of evidence being displayed. Dude's post suggests you are simply incorrect. I would add that since we can look at ancient artifacts, and determine a probable use for them ("this bead is jewerly," or "this sceptre was used in religious ceremonies") means that at least a few sociological "truths" have very long legs, indeed.quote:
Now you are funning me. You of course recognize the point that humans are far different than non-humans and inanimate matter. Humans act as a reflective object The natural sciences deal primarily with non reflective objects.
These two sentences, taken together, appear to me to make little sense. My points (in relation, I think, to what you've written above) were that the sociology of primates, dogs, and even ants can be studied, theories devised and tested, and "truths" discovered. Secondarily, that humans are trapped into using bits and pieces of the natural world when studying the natural world, exactly like sociologists are trapped within a society when studying societies. Neither field of study has the ability to peer in from "outside," in a truly non-biased manner.quote:
The definition of truth is conformity to reality. Although you recognize all of the things I say in this posting does not mean that many readers do not. When you see me make statements that you already know please recognize the fact that many readers are not as informed as you.
Oh, please. Tautologous definitions do not help educate your readers. Give our members - and non-member readers - that much credit.quote:
My posting is perhaps not as clear as it might be.
I'm still wondering how that comment about capitalized and uncapitalized "critical thinking" got in there, and what purpose it might serve.quote:
If social science is circular as my posting hinted then social science does not enjoy logical truth.
No, actually, what you are saying is that you think that social science isn't a science. But that's a huge generalization which requires evidenciary support... from you. For example, what aspects of sociological theories are, indeed, short-lived? Name some. You may learn that you're not really condemning sociology as a whole, but only certain aspects of it, which may admit their speculative nature already. But walk up to a randomly-selected PhD sociologist from a to |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 04:26:28 [Permalink]
|
Dude
Everything you say is correct. All these matters are known and taught along witha multitude of other opinions that conflict with all those you mentioned. It is not that theories are lacking it is that uncontested theories are lacking. Darwins paradigm is accepted by all of the natural sciences. I know about creation stuff but science ignores such nonsense. I am talking about natural science has paradigms that last centuries and are uncontested. All natural science accepts Newton and Darwin. No body accepts, uncontested, all these others you mention.
I am looking for those theories in social science that stand as paradigms that last for centuries. Show me these paradigms of which I fail to notice and then I will accept my ignorance and thank you for the info. |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 04:33:16 [Permalink]
|
Dave
There is a popular comedian in the US that does his whole routine based upon the premiss that men are from Mars and women are from Venus. The point being that man and woman live in different worlds and are thus unable to understand one another.
I suspect that you and I must recognize that we may have the same problem. I suspect we may never be able to agree on many things. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 12:24:10 [Permalink]
|
coberst wrote:quote:
I suspect that you and I must recognize that we may have the same problem. I suspect we may never be able to agree on many things.
Shall I assume, based upon your lack of substantive response to my points, that you have already given up attempting to communicate your points to me based on nothing more than this suspicion you have? I may share your suspicion, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stop posting my thoughts regarding your posts, unless I come to the conclusion that such efforts will necessarily be fruitless.
You also wrote:quote:
All natural science accepts Newton and Darwin.
False. Many sciences are neither based upon, nor have an effect upon, biology and/or physics. In fact, physicists tend to have no need to accept evolution, as the two paradigms overlap in only a few disciplines. Once again, you are making hasty generalizations.quote:
Show me these paradigms of which I fail to notice and then I will accept my ignorance and thank you for the info.
Um, isn't it your contention that none exist? Shouldn't this work - looking at all of sociology for counter-examples to your hypothesis - fall on your shoulders? Shouldn't you have done so before making the assertion in the first place? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 13:03:11 [Permalink]
|
| I give up Dave. You win. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 13:33:45 [Permalink]
|
coberst wrote:quote:
I give up Dave. You win.
I "win" nothing if you choose to terminate attempts at helping me understand your ideas. Obviously, I am not "getting it." Pointing out where my points differ from the ones you wish to express would help fix that. Clamming up does not. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2004 : 18:54:08 [Permalink]
|
coberst wrote:quote:
Show me these paradigms of which I fail to notice and then I will accept my ignorance and thank you for the info.
Does the idea that the Golden Rule is a good general practice for getting along in society count as a paradigm you've neglected? It's been recorded, in one form or another, for at least 2,300 years (and probably older than that), and as far as I can tell, its only "serious" detractors were/are only theoretical detractors, and not practicing detractors, except perhaps for the Cynics and some other ancient philosophical movements of which I may not be aware.
Every idea will have at least a few detractors, after all. There are currently many people who teach that evolution is incorrect, yet you claim it is a theory with which everybody in the natural sciences agrees (you are, unfortunately, just incorrect on that point). "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a "theory" for living which has had very few serious detractors, as far as I can tell. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2004 : 11:48:13 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps Kant's Categorical Imperative could be considered as a legitimate encapsulation of the Golden Rule. I suspect you would find many thinkers in the field of Ethics are inclined to treat it with less than great respect.
I find "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn to be a marvelous book on the nature of paradigms. I have formed most of my understanding regading this matter from this book. I think I am not alone in this judgement of this book. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2004 : 13:42:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is not that theories are lacking it is that uncontested theories are lacking.
There is no such thing as an uncontested theory. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2004 : 15:52:03 [Permalink]
|
| Dude I refer you to "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" for info regarding the nature and history of 'paradigm'. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2004 : 19:06:37 [Permalink]
|
Myabe you could summarize the salient points?
Because, from what you have been saying so far across the threads on this topic, I think your confusing some concepts.
Namely, the difference between theories and observed phenomenon.
And, you have never answered why you think the social sciences should contain the same volume of observed phenomenon and data that the physical sciences do. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
coberst
Skeptic Friend
182 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2004 : 10:01:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
Myabe you could summarize the salient points?
Because, from what you have been saying so far across the threads on this topic, I think your confusing some concepts.
Namely, the difference between theories and observed phenomenon.
And, you have never answered why you think the social sciences should contain the same volume of observed phenomenon and data that the physical sciences do.
The book on paradigms is more than I can summarize cogently.
Theories and phenomenon seem to be separate categories. I do not know how to make that comparison.
I never even hinted that social sciences and physical sciences should have the same volumn of observed phenomenon and data. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
