Sorry I just think you dismissing anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, linguistics, psychology, sociology, political science and more as entirely illegitimate would likely be fixed by you having a background in them off which to speak instead of spewing nonsense.
Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science. Similarly history and psychology aren’t sciences and sociology isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like anthropology and archeology. History just isn’t a science at all it’s a humanities study, parts of it can be scientific but history generally isn’t science.
Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science.
That’s great but you said:
“there is no legitimate social sciences.”
Also this is nonsense like saying there is no physics because when it comes to study it’s broken into subfields.
As for the rest of your nonsense all science is, is:
A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area.
Psychology is absolutely a science. As for history you’re probably right that in and of itself it is not a science but it is a core part of much of the rest of the social science fields, this however doesn’t do much to further your argument that the social sciences as a field are illegitimate.
There isn’t, there is no social science, there are social sciences. Social science ≠ social sciences. One implies all encompassing the other makes it quite clear there isn’t a single social science but rather many sciences that don’t amount to society when you add them together.
First off you said social sciences were illegitimate also you have a very feeble grasp of what makes a field legitimate, we obviously have not found an encompassing theory for all society, but so what? The same is true fo physics, maths and so many other fields. You seem like a disgruntled stemlord and I would invite you to engage in some self reflection (and I understand in the west this may only be for the privileged few but) you should also try engage with these subfields a bit before denouncing the entire field.
Holy shit you’re either playing daft and are tedious or you’re tedious and daft. When it’s worded there is no legitimate social sciences the glaring mistake the pluralization given correct grammar would be there are no legitimate social sciences.
If that’s your deductive prowess on display it’s no wonder you seen confused.
Those are natural sciences there isn’t however a natural science. Similarly chemistry and biology aren’t sciences and physics isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like mechanics and electromagnetism.
They aren’t, parts of social issues are hence the plethora of social sciences. You can’t objectively quantify the squishy human bits you can just narrow down the effect of the squishy stuff by quantifying what is objective.
There is no social science. There are social studies, social research and sciences that touch on society but no all encompassing social science because most of society isn’t objectively testable.
There is no study called social science, none point blank period. There’s social sciences and humanities, no social science, no sociology (which btw is generally referred to as social research because it’s not a science.)
It’s also not an excuse, it doesn’t need to be scientific since societal issues aren’t scientific and there is no legitimate social sciences.
Stemlords should be forced to study social sciences.
Neat?
Sorry I just think you dismissing anthropology, archaeology, economics, geography, history, linguistics, psychology, sociology, political science and more as entirely illegitimate would likely be fixed by you having a background in them off which to speak instead of spewing nonsense.
Those are social sciences there isn’t however a social science. Similarly history and psychology aren’t sciences and sociology isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like anthropology and archeology. History just isn’t a science at all it’s a humanities study, parts of it can be scientific but history generally isn’t science.
That’s great but you said:
“there is no legitimate social sciences.”
Also this is nonsense like saying there is no physics because when it comes to study it’s broken into subfields.
As for the rest of your nonsense all science is, is:
A systematic method or body of knowledge in a given area.
Psychology is absolutely a science. As for history you’re probably right that in and of itself it is not a science but it is a core part of much of the rest of the social science fields, this however doesn’t do much to further your argument that the social sciences as a field are illegitimate.
There isn’t, there is no social science, there are social sciences. Social science ≠ social sciences. One implies all encompassing the other makes it quite clear there isn’t a single social science but rather many sciences that don’t amount to society when you add them together.
First off you said social sciences were illegitimate also you have a very feeble grasp of what makes a field legitimate, we obviously have not found an encompassing theory for all society, but so what? The same is true fo physics, maths and so many other fields. You seem like a disgruntled stemlord and I would invite you to engage in some self reflection (and I understand in the west this may only be for the privileged few but) you should also try engage with these subfields a bit before denouncing the entire field.
Holy shit you’re either playing daft and are tedious or you’re tedious and daft. When it’s worded there is no legitimate social sciences the glaring mistake the pluralization given correct grammar would be there are no legitimate social sciences.
If that’s your deductive prowess on display it’s no wonder you seen confused.
Those are natural sciences there isn’t however a natural science. Similarly chemistry and biology aren’t sciences and physics isn’t really a thing anymore, it’s a older umbrella term that covered a bunch of stuff like mechanics and electromagnetism.
Hahahahaha holy shit
They aren’t, parts of social issues are hence the plethora of social sciences. You can’t objectively quantify the squishy human bits you can just narrow down the effect of the squishy stuff by quantifying what is objective.
Why is social science not legitimate?
There is no social science. There are social studies, social research and sciences that touch on society but no all encompassing social science because most of society isn’t objectively testable.
Do you think humans exist outside of the material world? Why would social science not be a science?
There is no study called social science, none point blank period. There’s social sciences and humanities, no social science, no sociology (which btw is generally referred to as social research because it’s not a science.)
You didn’t answer my question.