If you compare physics and sociology and expect the same results of course sociology is hard.
By that logic economics is hard, psychology is hard, philosophy is hard and so... but only because you're using the wrong tools for your field like a mathematician using critical theory or an architec using impresionism for his designs.
>>7840593 >By that logic economics is hard, psychology is hard, philosophy is hard and so... but only because you're using the wrong tools for your field like a mathematician using critical theory or an architec using impresionism for his designs. You're an idiot.
>>7840657 >an engineering student who thinks his subject is the end all be all of academic rigor Get over yourself. Regardless, we're not talking about "passing tests;" we're talking about advancing fields through original research.
This is obviously a highly simplistic view, but all things equal, human behaviour introduces very unpredictible events : we are endlessly self-regulating, so any equation modelling human behaviour, be it linear or not, would itself be a rough estimation, and only work in a limited space and time setup.
>>7840577 Top fucking kek. If you really wanted to predict how humans behave, skip the psychology surveys and statistics crap.
You do this; >Install CCTV cameras in everyones homes without their knowledge >record what people say and do 24/7 >track their movements >do analysis and modelling
Within a year you'll be able to “understand” and predict human behaviour to a 99% accuracy.
The fact that they are trying to observe and base their entire research on surveys and mathematical statistics (to pretend they are doing science), where the data can be easily manipulated, biased and people can outright lie when they do surveys, is the primary reason why sociology, psychology, economics and other liberal arts courses are a completely fucking joke.
>implying sociology is hard I took sociology because my physics degree requires some humanities classes It wasn't as easy as I was expecting, but that was mostly because of the massive amount of papers I had to write. We even touched on some very basic graph theory, but the words "graph theory" were never mentioned as to not frighten the sociology majors.
>>7840677 That is basically the definition of chaos - a system where an arbitrarily small perturbation now causes unbounded deviations at some later time. Such systems are obviously non-linear.
>>7840684 No, sociology is not part of psychology.
Even if it were, that post doesn't contradict sociology being useless. The fact that human behaviour is so chaotic and non-linear seems like a pretty good reason to deem it useless - there are so many different variables involved and we can't reasonably use statistical methods because the system is so non-linear that a small change in a single localised part of the system can have massive consequences - a politician being slightly more or less aggressive could be the difference between peace and nuclear war, for example.
Sociology being harder than physics does not mean that it is somehow more useful. Because physics is so simple, we can study it in exact detail. It's like the difference between non-relativistic quantum mechanics and relativistic quantum field theory - the non-relativistic theory is simple, so we can ask more complicated questions about it, such as questions about bound systems of particles or massive statistical ensembles that one could never hope to tackle relativistically. It would be fair to disregard research into determining the geometry of a protein from the standard model Lagrangian as useless, and sociology could be dismissed likewise (I'm not saying thi is my view, just that it is not as inconsistent as you made out).
I would say that social sciences fucking suck because of their low standards. Clinical psychology is the closest it has to being a real science (and it's getting better over time in this respect), but still has studies of like 150 people and pretends that you can generalize that shit to a population when you very clearly cannot.
Sociology is worse -- many sociology studies have sample sizes of 10, and sometimes as low as 3. Holy fuck is that not rigorous science.
Most of the social sciences are based upon theories of how things work -- theories which are often only partly based off of evidence, and which either cannot be or have not been proven.
>I'm a psychology major who wants to go into clinical psych >holy fuck am I not going to do amateur-tier shit like sample sizes of 10 people in studies
>>7841251 Not sure what you're talking about. Sociology usually uses the biggest sample sizes in all of social sciences. The standarized interview is even commonly called, the sociological method. What you are talking about are qualitative methods, which are bases on the symbolical interactionism paradigma. They don't claim to have any representative use or probability logic, they simply exist to generate hypothesis in complex fields with a lot of variables.
Besides, how do you even define "a real science"? Sociological theories have been proven to be effective, empirically, which means that by some extend they are right. The laws of thermodynamics are 'wrong' as well, if you apply them to a bumblebee, they can't explain why it can fly. However, these laws still helped us get actual working airplanes going, cause they are close enough to reality. Same goes for sociology. A good example for a pretty solid theory is the theory of social desorganization, also called "broken windows theory".
>>7841430 >It being harder to quantify literally makes it harder to study/research. They don't study chaos and non-linear PDEs so no.
>Designing an ethically allowable study that's valid and accurate of even basic ideas in social sciences is a nigh on nightmare compared to harder sciences. That's not what they do, they make up bullshit based on feelings and they implement that bullshit. Maybe one day if they fix the discipline and incorporate some math into the curricula it would be "hard", but right now it's not.
>>7841436 They do study the fuck out of probablistic spaces though. >That's not what they do, [insert 3 year-old whiny, ignorant bullshit that shows I know literally nothing about the field but 4chin memes] And you're telling other people to grow up?
Also, >implying difficulty of math involve=difficulty of producing meaningful results.
>>7841478 >thinks introductory probability spaces is where it stops >still being stuck on DUR MATH GOTS TO BE HARD OTHERWISE SUBJECT MUST BE EASY >sticking with "grow up" while using racial slurs
Come on now, if sociology is so easy, let's hear a testable, valid hypothesis for SES's role in violent crime.
Come on Mr. Mathman. If you can solve partial differential equations, this should be super simple for you...it's just stringing some words together after all, and we all know that people are super easy to predict behavior-wise.
>>7841505 >American niggers commit crime because of colonization. How is this testable. What is crime? What is American? What is nigger? >There, that's literally publishable in your shitty field. >implying it's my field Not everyone is so autistic that they only pay attention to one specific field of study anon. >literally publishable Not in the slightest, but you're got to keep up this illusion of superiority to keep from realizing how worthless of a human being you are and how pathetic your life is.
Fun fact, suicide is an option.
If you add it to your amazon gift list, link it here, I'll buy "Final Exit" for you.
>Not in the slightest, but you're got to keep up this illusion of superiority to keep from realizing how worthless of a human being you are and how pathetic your life is. You've obviously never read a sociology journal.
What about Quantum Physics? Doesn't the field, in a way, contradict the common held beliefs in classical mechanics? Isn't quantum analysis, on some level, require probability and chaos as much as sociology does?
I am a physics graduate student. A close friend of mine from undergrad was a very gifted mathematician before his schizophrenia became so severe he lost his ability to reason rationally about problems and basically do anything. The last time I talked to him, he told me he's working on deriving a proof of the existence of aliens living in "other dimensions".
Is it hard to find aliens living in other dimensions? Fuck yeah it's hard. But I'm not about to throw away my career to go work on "the hardest problems there are"...
It's simply not that fun to let oneself age and die halfway through cutting down a redwood forest with a toothpick. I'll take the chainsaw please
>>7840577 He is completely correct. Compare calculating rocket thrust to working out whether someone will commit crime or not. The former we can do easily and accurately, the latter we still have no fucking clue even after years of research. Economy goes shit, people do crime because no money, Economy is good, people do crime because plenty to steal. It's baffling.
>>7842335 No he's absolutely not correct and neuroscience can prove it. Solving Math problems requires the newest layer of the brain, which is still rather thin and underdeveloped, since we haven't been using it for that long in our human history.
>>7842353 Agreed on all accounts except one. He is one of the most famous 'scientists' today. The public eats his shit like it's made of gold and honey and sugar. Whether you and I dislike the fact is is not currently in discussion.
Why not abandon the society that treats you as a second class citizen yet you and your people are the one who are truly progressing it. Progression through the sciences and fields of technology. Not so called societal change by vilifying anything and anyone without a direct line to mudpeople.
>>7843076 It's so annoying how brainwashed you retards are, you are either a cave dwelling landwhale or a skinny beta faggot who's scared of his own shadow and just listens to what everyone says without question
Things that are ok to joke about or show on tv >Murder >Torture Not ok because muh political propoganda says so: >RAPE IS NOT OK IT'S NEVER OK WAAAAH WAAAAAH
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at [email protected] with the post's information.