What does /sci/ think of social/human sciences, specially sociology

File: 1484967416829.png (248KB, 576x500px) Image search: [Google]

248KB, 576x500px

bump

desu~

>>8617907
sociology is shit
continental philosophy is shit
analytic philosophy is ok

Most philosophy is actually interesting, if you actually read their books and not listen to other people's caricatures.

>>8617952
Why ?

I wanted to take 2 degrees at the same time (1 in social sciences and one in humanities ) so Im not as useless as other non-STEM students.

Which combination of one of each group would you think is the less shitty.

>Sociology - Communication - Political science - Social work

>Philosophy - History - Arts - Linguistics

>>8617974
it's a meme opinion that we pretend to share here
in reality, we know close to nothing about these topics. if you want to study something outside of STEM, I suggest you ask for advice elsewhere. for your choice of subjects /lit/ might be better if you want it to be 4chan.

the general advice we could give you is "just b yourself" as in, try not to decide for your major until you have taken classes in all things that might interest you. the picture one paints of subjects if usually very different than what they really are, and a moderately advanced class in them will show you. also, "survey classes" or whatever that are supposed to be an overview of a subject are usually TERRIBLE for this, you're better off taking a generic, normal class in some topic

now back to the usual

>political science
>science
lmao

High level philosophy is closely related to high level math. For example if you think about randomness, you kind of need philosophy there to get an accurate and useful definition.

I got a BA in sociology and I have to say that most of it is pure shit desu. Every single "big" theory is completely unprovable and most of the time not even disprovable. No empirical ground possible makes them pretty shitty in my opinion. Not to forget the endless (and completely unecessary) fights over word definitions. Yes you need a good definition, no you don't need to write 200 pages about it with completely fucked language just to sound smart.

I do like some parts of sociology, mainly medical sociology (you could theoretically just say epidemiology) and criminology for example. It's not all bad. In these field for example, people usually have really good stats and methodology knowledge and they work quantitatively empirically most of the time.

The saddest thing about the field is, that is has a lot of potentional, especially in the big data era, but most sociologist don't care about math and programming and instead keep the cycle of endless retarded discussions about word definitions going. I personally wouldn't study that again if I could change it, but it's not as bad as people on here make it out to be.

>>8617907
>sociology
Infested with activists and faulty research methods. I see sociologists make huge claims about the entire society based on studies with 60 badly sampled probands all the time. And then the results are often misinterpreted on top of that. Sociology could be a useful field if it wouldn't be inhabited by sociologists.

>>8618620
this

Qualitatice studies are the cancer of sociology.
> muh theoretical representativeness

I really don't get it desu. There are strict mathematical methods for statistical inference, something that is purely based on true logic. Then there is that one weirdly written text by some interpretative asshole (like Blumer). Why the fuck would you not use the model based on logic rather than the one some idiot made up?