Thread replies: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: annoyed_alien.jpg (11KB, 251x242px) Image search:
[Google]
11KB, 251x242px
>listen to podcasts with two famous people from social science / humanities
>they're discussing a contemporary issue
>filled with appeals to analogy, appeals to history, selective information, lies, and laughably huge generalisations
I don't get it. How can social sciences be so openly fraudulent? How can the media be so complicit? Seemingly every area of either bullshit or common sense has some social scientist attempting to monopolise it through pseudoscientific (or literary!) methods.
It seems like people pretend that domain knowledge can give them universal knowledge when that domain is wishy washy.
>>
media involvement means money
money means corruption
if its pushed into your face, its about the money
>>
>>2592153
I can't know what exactly your example entails, because you don't disclose it, but:
>appeals to analogy, appeals to history,
Those can be valid.
>selective information,
Especially any historian should know that a selection of information happens inevitably.
>lies,
Not every false statement is a lie. You can also be deceptive, you can be bullshitting, or you just might be unknowingly wrong based on false premises, or based on a false inference.
>and laughably huge generalisations
You mean like saying "the media" or "the social sciences" like yourself?
>>
>>2592190
Also, note that your post implies that you're making vast generalizations about a field based on a fucking podcast.
>>
Haven't said this in a while but op is indeed a faggot
>>
>>
>>2592153
>appeals to analogy
this is the worst of them all
>>
>>2592153
>appeals to history
what board you think u on?
Thread posts: 8
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1