I think Social Sciences is a useless classification. Academic

File: A-6 Intruder.webm (1009KB, 854x480px) Image search: [Google]

1009KB, 854x480px

>>1528665

I completely agree.

>>1528674
What happened there?

>>1528665
I think it's a nod to how the "Social Sciences" use an inductive format resembling that of the Natural Sciences, but, like the Humanities, have trouble finding the proof to turn theory into law. Economists can't just crash the economy "to see what happens" the way chemists perform an experiment.

>>1529776
Because of Ethics (rightfully) so you can't do the obvious experiments that are horrific but give easier to see reults. Real Talk the Social Sciences have helped propagate some really fucked up policies and social beliefs in the 19th-20th century and scientific rigor in the field wasn't really present during certain parts of their history. A lot of the stupid ass explanations and things people come up with here would not be out of place back then.

>>1529788
They had scientific rigor, it's just the implementation that's wrong. Supply-side economics says that consumers and producers work to set prices at an optimal level, but the policy that results is "let's not tax anything", even though the estimated turning point in the Laffer curve is around 70%.

Eugenics is mostly on the natural sciences though tbqh