next »

[D. G. S. Schweik]

I have enjoyed the playful give and take in the threads of this colloquy.  I’ve learned so much! One, only idiots go into the social sciences and humanities.  Plus, it seems that only an idiot savant can become a real scientist since those fields seem to require that you toss out anything resembling imagination, creativity, self-reflection and curiosity in order to succeed in “science.”  

Finally, I understand how creationist scientists come into being.  This colloquy reveals that a scientist simply regurgitates “facts” like a good little jackal without understanding the urgrund or cultural basis of their thoughts.  After all, it takes a manly scientist sans emotional baggage to really thump your chest and “gas on.”  

BTW, the narrative thread that I’ve enjoyed reading the most has been stuff like “I would posit that most are in social sciences because they could not cope with the rigors of ‘hard’ sciences.”  Boy that really cuts the humanists and social scientists to the quick!  It reminds me of the perspicacity displayed by so many MANLY scientists in faculty meetings, dinner parties and in most social settings.  

IMHO,   I’ve always thought that the real difference in the academy has to do with libido or lack thereof – with “scientists” sitting on the far left side of the curve with the rest of humanity occupying everything else.  It has always been a problem – and most scientist are continually stuck with “social envy” as can be easily witnessed throughout this “conversation.”

[%sig%]

[barb]

You want me to debate the "logic" of this?  
And I quote.....

"Social sciences seem to attract people with socialization problems and something of the "Hitler-need." These folks are not able to keep up scholarly effort and postpone gratifigation of ego as long as research scientists. So they have a tendency to attempt attention seeking with weird theories. These are rarely substantiated or argued. Rather, they are pontificated. The experience of standing at the front of a grades-hungry class of students is very conducive to conditioning to the swollen head syndrome."

or

"Professors in the humanities and social sciences have a perpetual inferiority complex. And its well deserved. I always laugh when people in the sociology department or psychology department refer to themselves as scientists."

Hitler-need, socialization problems, postponing gratification of the ego, swollen head syndrome, inferiority complex....And you think I am guilty of psychobabble and gobbledy gook?    

Laugh away....    Post Postmodern doesn't appear in those journals, because I just made it up.  Now you may use it.  public domain.    It's a gift.   :-)

[John Garner]

Social science does not have to be called "science" to be legitimate. B.F. Skinner has observed that all behavior is very, very consistant, at least statistically, and therein lies the strength of the social sciences.

I want to remind the good Physics folk (of which I am one) that Quantum Mechanics is Physics and there is a statistical probability according to Quantum Mechanics that we might not be able to find our locked car where we left it parked because there is a probability that it has moved somewhere else without any help. This is called Heisenberg's "Uncertainty Principle".  I suppose that all of us Physics folk remember the Undergraduate and Graduate courses in Quantum Mechanics, right? If it makes you uncomfortable, do not feel badly. Einstein once made the comment (paraphrased) that it was hard for him to believe that God played dice...

It is just the fact that in the Social Sciences this "uncertainty principle" is a much larger number that makes it difficult to accept for those who have to be precise to a very small percentage of error. But numbers are not supposed to bother "true" Physicists, are they?

Therefore, my friends, Social Sciences are fundamentally based on the same principles as Quantum Mechanics. We are all in the same boat, but some have more "wiggle room" than do others.

Have a GREAT day!

John

[J Turner, Math, Bethel C, TN]

Consider the quote from T Runes

"Science tries to establish proof for observed phenomena. Although empirical evidence can be convincing, it is by far the weakest form of proof. The best form of proof is formal---i.e., mathematical---but proof by repeatable experiment is also accepted. "


So let me suggest a natural extension of his hierarchy of worthy (intellectual) endeavors by adding mathematics in its proper place:

Highest: mathematics

low: the hard sciences: physics, chemistry, biology(?)

lowest: any other endeavor.

[Lowenstein]

Consider the quote from P. Eye:

"I yam what I yam and that's all I yam."

So let me suggest a natural extension of his hierarchy of worthy (intellectual) endeavors by adding ontology in its proper place:

Highest: eat your greens.

Low: those who refuse to take repeatable experimental hierarchies for the sake of hierarchy and natures of reality seriously

Lowest: self-aggrandizing fools and nimrod numbers crunchers (math professors from small religious colleges in the South?).

[J Turner]

Lowenstein wrote:

> Consider the quote from P. Eye:
>
> "I yam what I yam and that's all I yam."
>
> So let me suggest a natural extension of his hierarchy of
> worthy (intellectual) endeavors by adding ontology in its
> proper place:
>
> Highest: eat your greens.
>
> Low: those who refuse to take repeatable experimental
> hierarchies for the sake of hierarchy and natures of reality
> seriously
>
> Lowest: self-aggrandizing fools and nimrod numbers crunchers
> (math professors from small religious colleges in the South?).


Comments:

1. My apologies to Lowenstein.  I mistakenly thought that the outrageousness of the suggested hierarchy, together with the quote i included, would have made it self-evident that my suggestion was made in jest.

2.  Parts of "Lowest"  are either  "ad homimum" or "damning the source" or both.  Shame!

[Lowenstein]

I have only two comments:

1. My apologies to you. I mistakenly thought that the outrageousness of the suggested hierarchy, together with the quote i included, would have made it self-evident that my suggestion was made in jest.

2. Parts of "Lowest" are either "ad homimum" or "damning the source" or both. Shame!

I am, by the way, a nimrod numbers-cruncher (too?).

[Jeffrey Hall, Dept. of Mathema]

DE Teodoru writes:

> Take flat-head Bush, for example. Had he had social
> scientists to advice him instead of Darth Veder Cheney
> and the mediocre unuc neocons out to prove that they
> are "mensch," he might have had more depth in policy
> and better anticipation of the concequences of his flat-
> earth policies.

So in essence, Dr. Teodoru, your thesis is that should the Democrats win the next election, the whole country would be as well-run as a typical university social sciences department.  May I use this sentiment as a bumper sticker?

[%sig%]

[John Garner - Ivy Tech]

Quote...

"should the Democrats win the next election, the whole country would be as well-run as a typical university social sciences department..."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Jeff,

How do we shorten this to put it on a bumper sticker, It is quite a mouthful and I suspect that social science departments in universities are not departmentally unique...

John

[mauricio, research chemist,]

I want to believe that my fellow scientists on this board are
poking a little fun at themselves and their social-science colleagues.  If this is not the case, and they are indeed serious in their comments, I must hang my head very, very low. Scientists are modellers. We make the best, most elaborate models of nature we can, and at the end of the day, we will never know if this approaches what "nature" really is. It is true that our models are good enough to make a DVD player or viagra, but, nonetheless, we are playing with tinker toys.  It is the height of arrogance to say that if something does not appear in physical review letters, it is illegitimate.  I think it is no coincidence that I
include no "hard-scientists" in my circle of friends, even though they are all I come in contact with 10 hours a day.
This type of thoughtless pride is all too widespread.
     Let us also not forget that physics, or natural philosophy, became "quantitative" a mere few hundred years ago. That physicists are now trying to stop this same natural progression from happening in social sciences is absurd. Next time a physicist tries to ridicule social science, pick up a copy of Newton's early work and see how much jargon and mumbo jumbo he uses to explain things away.
Also, Newton tried to make a philosopher's stone and Tesla tried to create a "death ray."  I think post-postmodernism, whatever it may be, is slightly more rational than a philosophers stone.

[Rahul]

Hi
It is totally unwarranted to equate real sciences with social sciences. How can real sciences understand the human face of research which can only be understood by the social sceinces. There is need to have multi displinary approach in both the fields , but to say that real sciences is supreme is totally false. There is a need to understand the moral ethics philosophy which can only be understood by the social sciences. Real sciences is busy experimenting and providing mechanical theories that is the reason we have rejected the behaviourial analysis and the emprical approaches. The need of the hour is humanity, this is what we can learn from the fact that we have institutionalisation of international bodies like UN , ICJ , ICC. IF real science was there there would have been research instituties relating to sciences only. Has anybody thought while a scientist does his or her research he too keeps in mind the social and cultural aspects in order to arrive to a conclusion. IF any body has new opinion email me asap
Thanks

[jgarner - Ivy Tech]

mauricio states...

"Next time a physicist tries to ridicule social science, pick up a copy of Newton's early work and see how much jargon and mumbo jumbo he uses to explain things away."

Dear Sir!

We do not have to go back that far...

Dr. Einstein stated (paraphrased) in an attempt to explain the wireless (radio)

"...it is like a big cat with its head in New York and its tail in Los Angeles. When you pull on the tail the head meows ... only it is without the cat..."


Sometimes we know things, we see patterns and trends, but it is difficult to put such knowledge into words. It is why Physicists prefer to use mathematics...

It is why Social Sciences is or at least should be attempting to be more rigourous mathematically. Oh, yes, excuse my spelling, but all Physicists are really responsible for are numbers applying to the real world. I do not have to spell to be understood in my field.

[DE Teodoru]

Of course, if you couldn't hack calculus I and II, you see a lot of mobo jumbo in science. On the other hand, in real science error leads to "oh,oh" all the time because something fails right away. BUT social science is accountability free and thus rules by trendiness. Perhaps we should give social scientists at their conferences swords and he who walks out alive rules. Afterall, didn't God tell us that might makes right?

[JTurner, Bethel]

Go to 04-30-04 23:12