Forums - Politics Discussion - If I Wanted America to Fail....

HappySqurriel said:
Kasz216 said:

It doesn't surprise me.  I have a degree in psychology, almost ones in sociology and economics, and a minor in Buisness.

I've generally found that pretty much EVERY social science tends to focus more on math because a lot of social sceinces get looked down opon by the hard sciences like physicists when it comes to research and a alot of researchers feel inferior because of it.

The social sciences (for the most part) don't use statistics, they abuse it. Which is quite remarkable because statistics is an unfortunately necessary abomination of mathematics. When using statistics correctly you're always very open about the uncertainty of what you're saying because you can not prove anything is true with statistics; you can only demonstrate that they're likely to be true.

The vast majority of papers published in the social sciences would never be published in a reputable scientific journal because they lack statistical rigour; and in many (probably most) cases this is on purpose because they would never be able to make the claims they're making if they had to approach the problem in a scientific way.

Statistics, aka, fun with dice rolling.  Yes, in the area of probabilistic outcomes (rather than causality certainty), one can end up causing things to be spun all sorts of ways, in order to get results one desired, and justify one's views ahead of time.  Yes, the social sciences attempt to apply scientific rigor to an area that doesn't fit normal hard sciences.   

Internet forums map to some degree how the soft sciences works.  If you look hard enough, you can find something on the Internet to justify whatever opinion you have.



Around the Network
HappySqurriel said:
Kasz216 said:

It doesn't surprise me.  I have a degree in psychology, almost ones in sociology and economics, and a minor in Buisness.

I've generally found that pretty much EVERY social science tends to focus more on math because a lot of social sceinces get looked down opon by the hard sciences like physicists when it comes to research and a alot of researchers feel inferior because of it.

The social sciences (for the most part) don't use statistics, they abuse it. Which is quite remarkable because statistics is an unfortunately necessary abomination of mathematics. When using statistics correctly you're always very open about the uncertainty of what you're saying because you can not prove anything is true with statistics; you can only demonstrate that they're likely to be true.

The vast majority of papers published in the social sciences would never be published in a reputable scientific journal because they lack statistical rigour; and in many (probably most) cases this is on purpose because they would never be able to make the claims they're making if they had to approach the problem in a scientific way.

You've had a go at social science statistics before, i remember. My response would be that much of the lack of scientific rigor simply comes from the difficulty of doing original research (e.g. hugely extensive polling that would necessary for some things). For instance, my paper relies heavily on Freedom House democracy indeces, and so is only as scientifically sound as their methods are, due to my lack of resources as an undergraduate.



New Smash, New Mains

Werewolf Bar Mitzvah, Spooky Scary

I am reminded of an observation someone made that, whatever is set up as a measure involving humans will stop working as an effective measure. One of the problems of studying human subjects in social settings (natural environment) is the attempt to study will impact the subjects and cause them to act differently.

Here is an article on the problems with the formula used in the area of futures contracts:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17866646

Mr Khan said:
HappySqurriel said:
Kasz216 said:

It doesn't surprise me.  I have a degree in psychology, almost ones in sociology and economics, and a minor in Buisness.

I've generally found that pretty much EVERY social science tends to focus more on math because a lot of social sceinces get looked down opon by the hard sciences like physicists when it comes to research and a alot of researchers feel inferior because of it.

The social sciences (for the most part) don't use statistics, they abuse it. Which is quite remarkable because statistics is an unfortunately necessary abomination of mathematics. When using statistics correctly you're always very open about the uncertainty of what you're saying because you can not prove anything is true with statistics; you can only demonstrate that they're likely to be true.

The vast majority of papers published in the social sciences would never be published in a reputable scientific journal because they lack statistical rigour; and in many (probably most) cases this is on purpose because they would never be able to make the claims they're making if they had to approach the problem in a scientific way.

You've had a go at social science statistics before, i remember. My response would be that much of the lack of scientific rigor simply comes from the difficulty of doing original research (e.g. hugely extensive polling that would necessary for some things). For instance, my paper relies heavily on Freedom House democracy indeces, and so is only as scientifically sound as their methods are, due to my lack of resources as an undergraduate.

I would agree... but also disagree.  It's the diffculty of doing the original research, but even if you had an infinite amount of resources and could interview your ENTIRE sample set, it wouldn't be as statistically a certainty as the hard sciences.

I mean think about all the time that goes into a good study of just wording the questions, because there are 100 different ways people can take the same question as meaning.

 

Asking for hard science type rigor is more or less either impossible or nowhere near yet possible, depending on if you believe in a religion or are an atheist.