Social Sciences are Dumb

[belfpala]

Otherwise you couldn't construct any mathematical stricture, you first must have a domain to work with and set up you axioms regarding to that.

The difference is that things like economics and sociology and other "soft" sciences can be rigorous in examining data. That's not ambiguous.

It gets ambiguous when trying to interpret the data. That happens in "hard" sciences too, like physics (e.g., is light a wave or a particle?).

It does not happen in math.

[HumbleDuck]

The difference is that things like economics and sociology and other "soft" sciences can be rigorous in examining data. That's not ambiguous.

It gets ambiguous when trying to interpret the data. That happens in "hard" sciences too, like physics (e.g., is light a wave or a particle?).

It does not happen in math.

Yes, but that level of ambiguity is already less than math part of those theories.
Light example can get fairly complicated due to it being subject to debate to this date. Let's take time instead.
Newtonian mechanics has one definition of time, while GR has another. Both are valid mathematical definitions and both theories are valid as far as math is concerned.
So time as a mathematical object can be defined either way, but as a physical object, the Newtonian one is wrong and Einstein one seems to be the better one for now.
Same goes for light, as a mathematical object it can be wave, particle, closed loops or many other iterations. But as a physical object, it can not be all. That is because physics rejects ambiguity ( to some degree) as its theories should be tested externally ( experiments).
Again, please note I am using a strict definition of the word, ambiguity.
In other words, math if we define it study of mathematical objects, is inherently more ambiguous than natural sciences, while natural sciences ,if we define them study of nature, can be more confusing.

PS. I used the phrase "harder math" in one of my posts sarcastically due to its vague usage by the OP. That part of my post was not supposed to be taken seriously.

[belfpala]

In other words, math if we define it study of mathematical objects, is inherently more ambiguous than natural sciences, while natural sciences ,if we define them study of nature, can be more confusing.

PS. I used the phrase "harder math" in one of my posts sarcastically due to its vague usage by the OP. That part of my post was not supposed to be taken seriously.

I'd use "arbitrary" rather than "ambiguous" for pure math. I can arbitrarily define perpendicular lines as crossing once in a Cartesian system, twice in a spherical system, and never in a hyperbolic system.

Then, when applied to natural sciences, an arbitrary thing like tensor fields actually helps describe observations.

[HumbleDuck]

I'd use "arbitrary" rather than "ambiguous" for pure math. I can arbitrarily define perpendicular lines as crossing once in a Cartesian system, twice in a spherical system, and never in a hyperbolic system.

Then, when applied to natural sciences, an arbitrary thing like tensor fields actually helps describe observations.

But if you can define an object arbitrarily, wouldn't that make said object ambiguous?

[belfpala]

But if you can define an object arbitrarily, wouldn't that make said object ambiguous?

No. It wouldn't as long as its consistent within the system.

[HumbleDuck]

No. It wouldn't as long as its consistent within the system.

Consistency within the system is necessary for any definition, arbitrary or not.
But the existence of a mathematical objects should be independent of the system and to extent the definition given within that system.
If the definition of an object is arbitrary, it means we can understand the object in more than one possible way or sense, which is the definition of ambiguous.

[belfpala]

Consistency within the system is necessary for any definition, arbitrary or not.
But the existence of a mathematical objects should be independent of the system and to extent the definition given within that system.
If the definition of an object is arbitrary, it means we can understand the object in more than one possible way or sense, which is the definition of ambiguous.

Plato's realism? Cool.

[HumbleDuck]

Plato's realism? Cool.

To some extent, but not necessarily restricted to that one theory.
If a mathematical object doesn't exist ( not necessarily in "reality") it can not be defined further down the line.
For instance if you define a line via an axiom in some form of geometry, an entity should have existed in the first place to be defined as a line.
If taken otherwise ( objects existence are dependent on defining them via axiomatization) , the system would be incomplete. ( Gödel's theorems)

[Kokolums]

Yeah, let's think we can tackle something as ambiguous and open-ended as human nature and act like smug cunts through our academic careers.

Don't clunk Economics with them; we actually try to do harder math.

Smug cunts are a problem in general, not just confined to some academics in the social sciences.

[belfpala]

( Gödel's theorems)

Godel's theorem just says that every complete axiomatic system can make a statement that contradicts itself, more or less. That's not ambiguity.

[HumbleDuck]

Godel's theorem just says that every complete axiomatic system can make a statement that contradicts itself, more or less. That's not ambiguity.

Of course it isn't. I wasnt talking about ambiguity in the previous post, I was talking about existence of a mathematical objects.

[belfpala]

Of course it isn't. I wasnt talking about ambiguity in the previous post, I was talking about existence of a mathematical objects.

And I was talking about Platonic realism, which is what you seem to be talking about. I can imagine a cube, for example. But there's no true "cube" as Platonic reality would have us think.

[stormgust]

To some extent, but not necessarily restricted to that one theory.
If a mathematical object doesn't exist ( not necessarily in "reality") it can not be defined further down the line.
For instance if you define a line via an axiom in some form of geometry, an entity should have existed in the first place to be defined as a line.

So, if we can define god, we've just proven that god exists? Or am I reading this wrong?

[belfpala]

So, if we can define god, we've just proven that god exists? Or am I reading this wrong?

He's just doing Plato's ideal forms thing.

In short, I can't define y = ax + b to make a line in Cartesian coordinates unless some ideal form of a line already existed.

[Spectral]

Every time someone suggests that sociology is a perfectly legitimate science, I think I'm going to just respond by heading directly to the J Sociology website, plucking an article from the current month's issue, and linking it. Here's a good one from this month:

This article is based on study among women who ‘married’ other women in Iceland. It reveals complexity and controversial issues of visibility and acceptance, and illustrates the differing reception that same-sex partnership recognition receives in public, within families and within the non-heterosexual community in general. While same-sex partnership recognition has the potential to shape public opinion in positive ways, marriage neither guarantees acceptance from family nor does it automatically lead to visibility. These findings are interesting in light of the growing body of literature on the fading importance of tradition, growing individualization and the decline of the nuclear family, as they act to complicate such claims, showing that it is precisely through traditional family rituals that acceptance of same-sex relationships is communicated in small close-knit communities.

There's nothing there that looks remotely like science (there's no testable hypothesis, there doesn't even look like a hypothesis at all), yet it's published in the highest impact factor sociology journal. Sociology is not a science.

[HumbleDuck]

So, if we can define god, we've just proven that god exists? Or am I reading this wrong?

Of course. I don't think any one doubts that god exist as an idea. The problem arises when people want to take it further than that.( ie extending it to the "real" world)

[heerobya]

Of course. I don't think any one doubts that god exist as an idea. The problem arises when people want to take it further than that.( ie extending it to the "real" world)

Oh man, I hate seeing a comment like this on page 10 and realizing I have to go back through the last like 3-4 pages to get the whole conversation and context!