Is Linguistics a science?

>>8718143
It is, but CogSci>>>>>all of the shit they took to make this a real thing like Linguistics and Psychology

Prove me wrong, you even have to learn math like a CS but less autism and more research all the time.

>>8718150
>Prove me wrong, you even have to learn math like a CS but less autism and more research all the time.

Maybe. I looked at my alma mater and the CogSci department only required the math need for the specialization (e.g. Discrete Math for CS specialization, Psychology Math for Psych specializations, non for philosophy, etc.).

>>8718143
It's science, but it's really simple science. The methodology and experimental techniques aren't really sophisticated. Nothing can really be quantified in a theoretically meaningful way. The results that have come out of linguistics are nowhere near those of more established sciences. Another issue linguistics has is that there is little consensus. There are a few foundational issues that most people agree on, like the existence of some form of universal grammar, underlying representations in phonology, and phrase structure in syntax, but the details of the implementation of those notions can be wildly different from theory to theory. That said, yes, it is science. I think it's interesting and potentially really valuable, but we have a long way to go.

File: 1472172980625.jpg (8KB, 248x250px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 248x250px

>>8718188

Would you say its the science of social constructs?

>>8718192
No, I would say that the notion of social constructs does not come up, at least in the formal linguistics OP seems to be referring to.

The thing to remember is that Linguistics is in its infancy. People have been studying math, physics, etc. for thousands of years but Linguistics has only been a "real" science for about 50 years. So there aren't any concrete results yet (like >>8718188 said) but that's more a matter of time and out lack of understanding of neurological stuff rather than a flaw in the field itself. It's also pretty humbling and fun because everyone in the community knows that the theories all suck, so there isn't much elitism. It's an exciting field.

There's no reason why linguistics can't be seen as an extension of biology.

Learning which sounds people can make and which ones they can distinguish is extremely empirical. It varies significantly by language.

Research into child language acquisition is almost purely experimental science.

General linguistics should be mandatory in highscholl