colonel@gloria.UUCP (06/09/85)
["Who are we anyway?" --J. Lennon In His Own Write] > > Individual subjective experience is by definition external to > > the universe of science, since the scientific method involves > > by definition phenomena that are verifiable by independent > > observers. > > Does this mean that the social sciences aren't sciences? If being wrong is a symptom of not being a science, social science qualifies easily. -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (06/11/85)
>/* colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) / 10:06 am Jun 9, 1985 */ >If being wrong is a symptom of not being a science, social science >qualifies easily. No. Only many social SCIENTISTS.
colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (06/13/85)
["In St. Louie they ruin it, But they think they're doin' it."] > >If being wrong is a symptom of not being a science, social science > >qualifies easily. > > No. Only many social SCIENTISTS. Just my luck to wake up a Platonist. Does anybody else believe that social science "exists" apart from the people who do it? SMASH EXISTENCE! -- Col. G. L. Sicherman ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (06/15/85)
What I meant was that a great many people who go by the title "Social Scientists" are often wrong. I believe that in many cases, the reason is that they are attempting to use social science to "prove" their view of the world. I do not mean, of course, to discredit social scientists in general. Mike Sykora
tonyw@ubvax.UUCP (Tony Wuersch) (06/17/85)
In article <833@gloria.UUCP>, colonel@gloria.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes: > > >If being wrong is a symptom of not being a science, social science > > >qualifies easily. > > > > No. Only many social SCIENTISTS. > > Just my luck to wake up a Platonist. Does anybody else believe that > social science "exists" apart from the people who do it? > > SMASH EXISTENCE! I concur both with the Colonel's sentiment and his call. But the "Only many social SCIENTISTS" line could imply that the standards of the writer of that line only permit the work of some current social scientists to fit his definition of social science. Which is ok, since every evaluation of scientific merit involves subjective standards of adequacy. And since social science lacks a core set of ideas in which lack of belief by an individual amounts to non-membership in the class of social scientists (a science can't be a science if everybody can be a scientist), social science standards include a lot of subjective variation. As far as believing that social science "exists", I'd say it does "exist" apart from the people who do it. It also "exists" in the history of the people who did it. Tony Wuersch {amd,amdcad}!cae780!ubvax!tonyw