News:

PD.com: Taoism in a clown costume.

Main Menu

Has this been addressed?

Started by Jasper, January 13, 2007, 04:54:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

P3nT4gR4m

Social science - it might be social. Might be but scientific? Get the fuck out of here!

I'm up to my arse in Brexit Numpties, but I want more.  Target-rich environments are the new sexy.
Not actually a meat product.
Ass-Kicking & Foot-Stomping Ancient Master of SHIT FUCK FUCK FUCK
Awful and Bent Behemothic Results of Last Night's Painful Squat.
High Altitude Haggis-Filled Sex Bucket From Beyond Time and Space.
Internet Monkey Person of Filthy and Immoral Pygmy-Porn Wart Contagion
Octomom Auxillary Heat Exchanger Repairman
walking the fine line line between genius and batshit fucking crazy

"computation is a pattern in the spacetime arrangement of particles, and it's not the particles but the pattern that really matters! Matter doesn't matter." -- Max Tegmark

Cain

No, there is serious analysis that can be done in the social sciences, because you are introducing scientific rigour to the problems of the discipline, but when dealing with something as broad ranging as security or terrorism (as I do), it invariably fails to make a convincing case for what we do know, only for excluding certain thing.

ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞

Quote from: DJRubberducky on January 22, 2007, 09:46:16 PM

Wedding dresses full of tuna make great cleric bludgeons.

That's why physics rocks.


Fixed.
P E R   A S P E R A   A D   A S T R A

ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞

Quote from: Cain on January 24, 2007, 11:46:28 AM
No, there is serious analysis that can be done in the social sciences, because you are introducing scientific rigour to the problems of the discipline, but when dealing with something as broad ranging as security or terrorism (as I do), it invariably fails to make a convincing case for what we do know, only for excluding certain thing.

Could you expand that a little bit.  I've got teh intrigue.
P E R   A S P E R A   A D   A S T R A

Cain

Quote from: Netaungrot on January 24, 2007, 12:21:49 PM
Quote from: Cain on January 24, 2007, 11:46:28 AM
No, there is serious analysis that can be done in the social sciences, because you are introducing scientific rigour to the problems of the discipline, but when dealing with something as broad ranging as security or terrorism (as I do), it invariably fails to make a convincing case for what we do know, only for excluding certain thing.

Could you expand that a little bit.  I've got teh intrigue.

Alright.  For example, the early days of terrorism research were carried out by military officers who saw it as a subdivision of irregular warfare and so little was done to develop causal reasons, while the manifestations of terrorism were numbering in the thousands.

In the 70s it was finally turned over to psychologists, quite sensibly, who collected a ton of data from imprisoned new left and ethnic insurgent groups in Europe.  The data, for example, showed that there were very few similarities in psychological problems among terrorists.  The variety of tests that were carried out came out with few conclusive results.  We know, for example, terrorists are not psychopaths, paranoids or delusional in most cases.  There is no linking factor at that level.

So researchers went up a level, to look at societal issues.  Here there was some more success, but interpretating the data is hard.  For example, there is a conclusive link between poverty and terrorism.  But there is also a link between failed states and terrorism.  Does poverty cause the terrorism which causes the state to fail, or does the failed state cause the poverty which causes terrorism?  Or are both a result of terrorists?

There have been more negative successes too.  We know many terrorists do not work along cult lines, with deliberate brainwashing until someone has already committed themselves to that cause.  Once someone is considered "in", they'll get the usual weapons and covert training along with a heavy dose of ideology, but usually its up to them to make the first moves.  We know now that suicide bombers often self-select and that many groups who use them do not themselves understand the underlying motivation for their actions, though they are willing to use them.

Its like coming to a conclusion, the long way around.  Is it this similar in psychology, with biological data and discoveries weeding out the less workable theories?  From what I hear, its like this way in most sociology.

Triple Zero

interesting stuff, Cain (though i was just  :troll: -ing a bit about the pseudo science, but you know that)
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.

Cain

I agree it is, to a degree.  It uses scientific conventions, but because you cannot control much of what is studied, you can never account for the many thousands of variables, from individual psychology up to systemic factors.

LMNO

All you can do is perform massive amount of experiments, controlling as much as you can, and then interpolate statistics and trends.



Hey... we do know the History of Psychiatry.

AFK

Quote from: SillyCybin on January 24, 2007, 11:43:37 AM
Social science - it might be social. Might be but scientific? Get the fuck out of here!

Well, I am a walking, breathing example of the "science" in social sciences.  It's how I make my living currently.  In fact, more and more the arena of social services and social sciences are becoming even more scientific.  That's because everything is becoming data driven.  With data, with hard numbers, you can draw conclusions about phenomena.  But, much like the hard sciences, in many cases it is still a theory and so it allows for new questions and new avenues to look into.  All I do all day is look at data and it is my scientific analysis of this data that, among other factors, impacts the strategic planning of the agency.  It is still studying cause and effect, but instead of atoms and molecules, I'm studying individuals and communities.  
Cynicism is a blank check for failure.

Triple Zero

yes, even if you dont have useful data, if you apply the statistics (MATH!) right, you will end up with scientific fact. just that if the data really isn't useful, your facts will be that you "can't draw any conclusions from the data", but you know that for a fact!

seriously, in science, even bad results are good results. as long as you obtain them carefully.

unfortunately i have the idea that some of the less statistically/mathematically -able people in the non-exact sciences kind of take a more loose approach to the accuracy of their statistics than the exact sciences do.
but on the other hand i know enough examples of people who do take it seriously as well ('s just that they don't often come up with the interesting conclusions heh)
Ex-Soviet Bloc Sexual Attack Swede of Tomorrow™
e-prime disclaimer: let it seem fairly unclear I understand the apparent subjectivity of the above statements. maybe.

INFORMATION SO POWERFUL, YOU ACTUALLY NEED LESS.