Why don't they award Nobels for Maths, Psychology/Psychiatry/Sociology,

File: 1305516297883.png (221KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 512x384px

>Sociology
Because it's literally just Left-wing opinions and supposition with little basis in reality.

>>7948901
maths isn't a science per se, medicine is the only reason people care about biology and the rest are just meme tier

>>7948905
>>7948907
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/under-the-influence/201308/the-psychology-the-psychology-isnt-science-argument

>>7948927
http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail-reproducibility-test-1.18248

Can't reproduce findings=Not a science.

Psychology never had a chance as its subject of interest knows it is being studied and often changes its behaviour as a result. That, and the fact that it has historically attracted unsavoury individuals with political agendas.

>>7948905
>I know nothing about other fields but I'll speak up anyway

I bet you also post in "if girls like intelligence, why are they not attracted to me" threads.

>>7948901
>maths
That is because Nobel's wife cucked him with a mathematician.

>>7948935
Ehh, some of the sociology I have encountered during my pol sci degree had a normative bent and other good examples of sociology (currently reading Oström) have been criticized for not being explicitly normative in their theory (which is bullshit(fuck civic studies)). There is definitely a savior complex going on with a very loud section of sociology, which is problematic for a subject matter that wants to be seen as a 'science'.

>>7948901
The story behind the Nobel Prize is that Alfred Nobel invented dynamite and after he read a mistakenly-published obituary about him he decided to put dedicate his massive wealth to clean up his name. People, probably incorrectly, thought of his explosives as a tool second and as a weapon first.

If you spend your fortune on being nicely remembered, you don't spend it on things your average person doesn't care to understand like math. You spend it on things people know and appreciate like peace efforts, medicine, and literature.

There is also a possibility that Alfred had little appreciation for math. Chemists can be like that.

>>7948905
>Because it's literally just Left-wing opinions and supposition with little basis in reality.

Well they do have a prize for "Economic Sciences" which is just right-wing opinions and supposition with little basis in reality.

>>7948959

If you think economics is right wing, you are just proving your understanding of economics to be dismal.

Similarly, I could easily disprove your second statement with thousands of examples. However, I think the fact that economists are quite well paid is a fairly good indicator of their importance in society.

>>7948979
>If you think economics is right wing
90% just shitpost response to >>7948905

I DO think it's mostly politically motivated opinion though.

>>7948979
>fact that economists are quite well paid is a fairly good indicator of their importance in society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

>>7948959
A humanity based off of math is "right wing opinion and supposition"? Don't be retarded, lad.

File: 1457120122766.jpg (41KB, 749x512px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 749x512px

>>7948997
>A humanity based off of math is "right wing opinion and supposition"? Don't be retarded, lad.
Scratch my shitpost-y "right-wing", and tell me how/why I'm wrong.
No amount of math can turn economics into an actual science.
Only scientific method, including experimentation to test hypotheses can do that.
Hell, this isn't even like psychology where detractors have to claim the experiments aren't rigorous or repeatable.
99% of economics isn't tested/validated by ANY kind of experimental evidence.

>Don't be retarded, lad.
Nice ad-hominem, but I'm old enough to be fucking your mother, boy.

>>7949025
What do you think econometrics is? the whole field is experimental evidence....

>>7948994
Most economic organisations operate separately from the government and politics (depending on your country). I.e. central banks.
And mind you politicians regularly go against economists advice in search of private interests. A large amount of economists study factors such as wealth distribution, health, efficiency... not all are financial economists.

>>7948928
The truth is not as simple as your simple mind

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/science/psychology-replication-reproducibility-project.html

>>7949025
i dont have any stakes here, I agree with you that economics is unrigorous shit

but you need to recognize the difference between a personal attack and an insult-laced reply

crying "ad hominem!" every time you get insulted is a sure way to look like a retard

>>7949052
>They noted that, for example, one study on race initially run at Stanford was replicated in Amsterdam, a different cultural context.
>there was no agreed-upon protocol for crunching the numbers

these sound like excuses to justify the value of a shitty pseudoscience
cant reproduce findings = not a science. an opinion article giving bullshit justificaionts on why it happens doesn't change anything

>>7948905
I think sociology is a soft science, but it's because they can't predict things with accuracy. They do put in the effort for proper methodology and everything. Sociology is a science.

>>7949061
>they make an effort!
>so it's science
kek

>>7949056
But if you don't operationalize and control the variables in the same way, it is NOT a replication. In essence, they ran similar experiments, not replications, and sometimes got different results. Instead of saying it's all bullshit, try to figure out why different results were obtained.

>>7948901
>Biology
You get a nobel in physiology, because medcucks hate to be called applicative biologists

>>7948901
I give you, that it is weird that they do not offer a Nobel prize in maths. The answer to why they do not offer to those other fields you mentioned are obvious, aren't they? - They are not real sciences...

>>7948937
This is the correct answer re: mathematics.

/thread

>>7950125
Came here to post this. Biology has been expanding very rapidly, and the Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine is pretty much Nobel Prize in Biology nowadays. Look at the recent Nobel Laureates, they are all biologists.

>>7950135
>le psychology and biology aren't real guise!!!1!!!

>le duhhhhh!!!!!!

>>7948901
Because the fields you mentioned don't actually advance humanity. Math not directly and the others don't have a good track record.

>>7951174
Oh except biology. That one's like math.

>>7948901
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/10/the-reason-there-is-no-nobel-prize-for-mathematics-had-nothing-to-do-with-any-wifemistress-of-alfred-nobel/

Biology and Psychiatry are probably covered in things like chemistry and medicine. The hard thing about Psychology and Sociology are that you deal with humans and the problem is that they lie so it's hard to get good reliable data from them. That plus research on those subjects is often severely limited by ethical concerns.

>>7948935
this

>>7948901
Maths doesn't have direct applications in real life, only via other fields. Bio is covered in other fields. The other three a literal shit.

>>7948901
Because those are undergrad study options, not professions. Nobels go towards professional work.

>>7948901
There are other prestigious awards for other work. The Fields Medal has often been called "The Nobel Prize for Mathematics". I know Japan has a society that gives out an Award for Biology research.
The Nobel prize might be the most prestigious recognition, but it's not the only one of it's kind.

>>7948901
We've got more important things to do like give nobel prizes to king shit nigger obongo for,... idk just being kingshit nigger i guess

>>7948901
Who is this semen demon?

>>7952048
>google image search

>>7952048
buck angel

>>7948901
For maths I know it's cuz the guy who created it actually hated math

>>7948979

That economists are well paid is not a good indicator of economics status as a science. Economists are important because control of economic factors is important and there is no better way to understand them at the moment.

But economic transactions ARE social transactions. For economics to model those formally, they have to exclude many factors influencing business decisions. Some econonomists basically think they are practicing a natural science, but it is just as prone to error as sociology. Just more formal.

Now I don't know if this is changing with more data being generated online that you could incorporate into models. It probably is. Bet then again, if sociology could get of its ass and teach modern methodology they could profit from that too.