Are all social sciences bullshit ?

[Greta]

A timely report about social sciences: Scientists Only Able To Reproduce Results For 13 Out Of 21 Human Behaviour Studies https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2018/08/scie ... r-studies/

On the plus side, 1) at least now some more rigour is being applied and 2) 13 is at least a little better than 50/50

[Walker]

Walker, if you are going to deny the problems with climate change and what needs to be done for the sake of the next generation then there's not much point interacting at all.

Sheesh. The rank denial these days is getting beyond bizarre. It's basic physics and the data is in. There can be no logical climate denial now, that's pure political tribalism without even a skerrick of logic or science to it.

What are those problems theorized by scientism?

Rather than discuss the changing weather, I thought that the debate was whether or not anthropogenic activities, in addition to stimulating plant growth, has the effect of delaying the overdue ice-age and preserving most life on earth that would otherwise die. And so it was written, I sent you a heater, what more do you want?

[Greta]

Walker, if you are going to deny the problems with climate change and what needs to be done for the sake of the next generation then there's not much point interacting at all.

Sheesh. The rank denial these days is getting beyond bizarre. It's basic physics and the data is in. There can be no logical climate denial now, that's pure political tribalism without even a skerrick of logic or science to it.

What are those problems theorized by scientism?

Rather than discuss the changing weather, I thought that the debate was whether or not anthropogenic activities, in addition to stimulating plant growth, has the effect of delaying the overdue ice-age and preserving most life on earth that would otherwise die. And so it was written, I sent you a heater, what more do you want?

So you are claiming that you understand science and nature better than scientists do - and all without the need for serious study. All those brilliant minds studying and working in the field for decades yet you, without any study at all, already understand what's happening far better than them.

You must be the greatest genius in human history! What's your IQ? Double that of Einstein's?

[Walker]

Walker, if you are going to deny the problems with climate change and what needs to be done for the sake of the next generation then there's not much point interacting at all.

Sheesh. The rank denial these days is getting beyond bizarre. It's basic physics and the data is in. There can be no logical climate denial now, that's pure political tribalism without even a skerrick of logic or science to it.

What are those problems theorized by scientism?

Rather than discuss the changing weather, I thought that the debate was whether or not anthropogenic activities, in addition to stimulating plant growth, has the effect of delaying the overdue ice-age and preserving most life on earth that would otherwise die. And so it was written, I sent you a heater, what more do you want?

So you are claiming that you understand science and nature better than scientists do - and all without the need for serious study. All those brilliant minds studying and working in the field for decades yet you, without any study at all, already understand what's happening far better than them.

You must be the greatest genius in human history! What's your IQ? Double that of Einstein's?

It doesn't take a genius to spot a scam.

What is called "Climate change" is the quasi-adult version of Chicken Little.

The climate changed before man walked the earf.
The climate changed when man walked the earf.
Correlation is not causation.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

What is called "Climate change" is the quasi-adult version of Chicken Little.

The climate changed before man walked the earf.
The climate changed when man walked the earf.
Correlation is not causation.

You don't think that the vast majority of scientists who accept man-made climate change, would have taken this into consideration? Do you at least realize how simple of an objection that is?

Some things are accelerating at a rate, faster they were before man's industrial presence.

[Walker]

What is called "Climate change" is the quasi-adult version of Chicken Little.

The climate changed before man walked the earf.
The climate changed when man walked the earf.
Correlation is not causation.

You don't think that the vast majority of scientists who accept man-made climate change, would have taken this into consideration? Do you at least realize how simple of an objection that is?

Some things are accelerating at a rate, faster they were before man's industrial presence.

Much less sudden than natural Ice-age onsets that wipe out life.

Notions of sudden are relevant to weather reports, in which heat spells in summer and cold spells in winter are invariably attributed to man's activities. How important and significant man must be to the earth, how insignificant to the stars.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Much less sudden than natural Ice-age onsets that wipe out life.

Ice ages have causes, though.

Notions of sudden are relevant to weather reports, in which heat spells in summer and cold spells in winter are invariably attributed to man's activities. How important and significant man must be to the earth, how insignificant to the stars.

You don't think that the vast majority of scientists who accept global warming, have considered all of that?

[Walker]

Do you think that like you, scientists have considered if campfires caused the last ice age, as part of all that?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hi everyone!

I'm interested in psychology and in a lot of social science but I recently read about Nassim Taleb and his point of view of them which is along with Karl popper's statements. Now I'm struggling to find the truth because I was about to start psychological studies but these guys really influenced my thinking so I'd like to have others point of views and especially people who agree with them. Let me explain..

The point is that it seems in all social science, the methodology used in studies is to confirm a theory instead of disconfirm it. This is related to what Taleb call a Black Swan : Years ago, people thought there were only white swan because they had never seen others swans in the worlds, it was an overall statement that only white swans existed. Untill one day one person discovered a black swan. At this point all of the previous theory of white swan collapsed. One discomfirmation destroyed all of the previous theories. That's why they called social science pseudo-science. Because all of the
social science research are victim of a confirmation bias, ( cognitiv bias are from psychology, do u understand why am i struggling ??)

To link that with what taleb and popper think about real science is like with Einstein. Einstein didnt look at the past to confirm his theory but discover the general relativity and nowadays no one have been able to disconfirm it. Instead, i heard recent facts justified it. If one day someone will be able to disconfirm his theory, all of the general relativity will collapse, this is like the black swan.

So i have been thinking about it and one begining of statement against the title statement that i figured out may be conformity : It seems just a few people are marginal (isnt it the definition of marginal?), just a few people do not think like most of others people, most of people brain works similarely, (add to this that society is conditioning people to behaviour in the same way) and so one psychological statement which is disconfirm in few people but confirm in a lots of could not be totaly wrong because of the likelyness of people. and on the average this statment is true.

What do u think about all of that ? I'm looking for the truth and every thoughtful statement are welcome.

Every human falls prey to confirmation bias, even Nassim Taleb and Popper. As far as I'm concerned psychology has the potential of showing why, how, when if and to what extent it's true that we suffer from it. At least I understand that psychology and any other scientific discipline should be joined at the hip, so as to preclude such things as much as possible. Philosophy and psychology, for me, are both required to understand either. And I believe it's true for everyone.

Humankind has created and researched as many fields as it has, because they all apply. So to ensure one has the clearest vision of truth, they must consider the interplay of everything. A tall order indeed, taking a lifetime and then some. Which is why humans fall prey to confirmation bias and similar things that derail unveiling truth. Make no mistake, to study only one discipline can only ever lend to a very limited understanding of the truth of it all, even that one discipline, as this universe is nothing if not complex, including quite possibly a googolplex to the googolplex of things to consider, that informs one another, as they are all in fact interwoven into this one universe.

[Greta]

Walker, you cannot validly speak on matters of science because you have bugger all knowledge of science. You are akin to a a layperson claiming to know better than surgeons how to do their work. Similar years of study and experience required.

There is diminishing respect for professional expertise in this increasingly postmodern age. The idea now appears to be to bullshit with panache rather than attempt to be truthful.

Have you considered joining the flat Earthers, Walker? They seem to be about your speed.

[Sir-Sister-of-Suck]

Do you think that like you, scientists have considered if campfires caused the last ice age, as part of all that?

...I'm not sure there were animals who knew how to make camp fires before the last ice age.

The last ice age started well before early human are thought to have been able to create fire, according to wikipedia

I mean, forest fires do have a considerable carbon footprint, which are mostly caused by campfires, or in other ways - by humans. But again, man's fault.

[Walker]

Walker, you cannot validly speak on matters of science because you have bugger all knowledge of science. You are akin to a a layperson claiming to know better than surgeons how to do their work. Similar years of study and experience required.

There is diminishing respect for professional expertise in this increasingly postmodern age. The idea now appears to be to bullshit with panache rather than attempt to be truthful.

Have you considered joining the flat Earthers, Walker? They seem to be about your speed.

Sure I can speak about science.

Listen to this.

Give $15 trillion to Al Gore?

Gull-i-bull.

[Walker]

Do you think that like you, scientists have considered if campfires caused the last ice age, as part of all that?

...I'm not sure there were animals who knew how to make camp fires before the last ice age.

The last ice age started well before early human are thought to have been able to create fire, according to wikipedia

I mean, forest fires do have a considerable carbon footprint, which are mostly caused by campfires, or in other ways - by humans. But again, man's fault.

You're saying that humans will be the cause of the next ice age?

[Walker]

Walker, you cannot validly speak on matters of science because you have bugger all knowledge of science. You are akin to a a layperson claiming to know better than surgeons how to do their work. Similar years of study and experience required.

There is diminishing respect for professional expertise in this increasingly postmodern age. The idea now appears to be to bullshit with panache rather than attempt to be truthful.

Have you considered joining the flat Earthers, Walker? They seem to be about your speed.

You're comparing weathermen to surgeons?

Don't be a moron.

So called Climate Change, aka global cooling, aka global warming, aka whatever bumper-sticker phrase sticks in the consciousness of the masses, is a political movement relying heavily on belief.

The common phrasing is, do you believe in global warming? You yourself use this word.

A scientist is not all that concerned with belief, and neither am I, however you are.

Global warming is the religion of Scientism.

Here's the leader of the religious movement in action, displaying his years of rigorous training.

How hot is the core of the earth?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14kNtnJgXXM

[Walker]

Do you think that like you, scientists have considered if campfires caused the last ice age, as part of all that?

...I'm not sure there were animals who knew how to make camp fires before the last ice age.

The last ice age started well before early human are thought to have been able to create fire, according to wikipedia

I mean, forest fires do have a considerable carbon footprint, which are mostly caused by campfires, or in other ways - by humans. But again, man's fault.

Do you think that animals knew how to make the internal combustion engines and drive cars, thus causing the last ice age?

You're saying that humans will be the cause of the next ice age?