• BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I mean you’re not wrong with how you’re thinking about hard STEM sciences but it’s needlessly gatekeeping and full on incorrect to say others aren’t good science. Most of them are very necessary and very real science usually far more important to the world than anyone to the right of the graph in your end of the Purity kxcd lol.

    FWIW there’s not competing sciences for even most of the STEM ones either. If you think there is… well you might just be studying string theory still lmfao.

    Gotta feel sorry for made up quirks of mathematics that always fall apart when applied in the real world though lol. They make for fun what ifs but damn if they aren’t fleecing their way to a paycheck for hypersensationalized headlines for super fringe never proveable theorems.

    • GiveMemes@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      Just realized clean drinking water, electricity, transport infrastructure, etc. isn’t important. The things you think are important to the world are only important because most people in first world countries have never had to face true hardship in their lives as a result of technological advancement.

      I’m not talking about string theory. Scientists disagree about things at a high level all the time. It’s how the fields move forward. They don’t disagree on the fundamentals though, which social sciences have a tendency to.

      I’m not here to say the social sciences are useless. In fact I’ve stated several times that I think people need to be able to understand them and use them. I’m arguing something different entirely and I don’t know why you keep strawmanning me. It’s not about some ideological purity but a basic difference in the ability to learn things because of our inability to control the relevant variables.

      • BlanketsWithSmallpox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        It’s not about some ideological purity but a basic difference in the ability to learn things because of our inability to control the relevant variables.

        We are just going to have to disagree then. Said variables are heavily controlled, well known about, and usually spoken about in every paper about issues it might have.

        I’m pretty confident we’re at an impasse now so not much more to say since the long thread has brought in too many side musings too.

        Take care.