I think there's some wiggle room in deciding which social sciences should be called sciences.
I can agree with that. Some (young) fields haven't even made it to the "classification" stage. That doesn't mean that they won't get there and move beyond it -- it's just the nature of young fields (with some exceptions, naturally).
I like that you mention cognitive science, the best exception the young field rule. Though it had the unique advantage of being generally considered an interdisciplinary effort, spanning a broad range of fields including those long accepted as science.
I don't know that I'd classify all of those young fields as philosophy. (I'm thinking of fields like leadership, breaking off prematurely from more established, and scientific, disciplines like industrial/organizational psychology.) We don't see the rigor normally associated with philosophy, nor much (if any) support from the philosophical literature like we've seen in cognitive science. I don't have a better term, but philosophy just doesn't seem to fit. (Maybe something like "practical disciplines" given the emphasis on application?)
I wasn't attacking you. I was addressing a specific statement, made by the author, that you reference. Relax, the world isn't out to get you.
(In fairness, my reply to your "strawman" post could be interpreted as an attack -- but one made in retaliation! You've got to admit, however, that it isn't exactly the most coherent thing you've ever written.)
You have not refuted the claim that the social sciences are essentially unscientific
Why should it? Would you bother to refute a nonsense claim like "marshmellows are just like pudding" or "cat's can only live on a strict diet of bicycles"? Of course not. It's not my fault that the author is a moron, nor is it my problem. (Besides, what would I offer as proof? Slowly copy/paste 50 years worth of the most popular journals?)
It's obvious to anyone without a mental disorder that the social sciences are scientific. They do, after all, apply the same methods as other sciences (with testable hypotheses and experiments and everything!). It's like claiming that Biology isn't a science.
I've run across that one myself. I'll bet you have as well. Discipline envy? Just get over it and laugh when the morons on internet discussion forums who bash biology or the social sciences fall all over themselves to produce this or that study (the fruits of biology or the social sciences) to support their argument with scientific research.:)
Did I personally offend you some time in the past?
It was a dramatic shift in worldview, but it did not directly cause people to re-evaluate how the world works
There cannot be a dramatic shift in a persons worldview without that person re-evaluating how the world works. Do you know what the term "worldview" means? Are you confused and think that it requires they do that explicitly or in some lightning-bulb moment of realization?
By developing a ubiquitous communications medium, we were able to communicate with each other rapidly and rearrange social structures, (and that affected how we perceived the world,
Hmmm... you might say that it changed their understanding about how the world works. Their worldview, if you will...
This isn't complicated. Apparently, you know how to use a dictionary. That's great. Now we just need to work on your comprehension.
Maybe you're nit-picking over the word "directly"? In that case, I'll still stand by my "What?" but won't bother to argue with you about causation. If you have even the tiniest clue, you know that's a waste of time.
But there were radical changes to our understanding of the word that fundamentally changed fields like physics. Newton's break with mechanism and Planck/Einstein/etc.'s break with materialism were rather dramatic metaphysical shifts. There's no reason to believe that we won't break away from modern physicalism with, for example, information taking a primary role. Remember that Planck was discouraged from pursuing a career in physics as it was thought to be almost complete! How odd is it that a little over a hundred years later we're already making the same absurd assumption?
I don't know about you, but a radical change to our basic assumptions about the nature of reality seems to qualify as a "paradigm shift" to me.
Or maybe I'm crazy. I just hate the phrase paradigm shift.
Probably because it's been abused to the point that it's meaningless. Every week it seems like the press feels the need to call minor updates to popular products or industry fads being described by the press as "paradigm shifts".
the social sciences are a mistake: they're really veiled branches of philosophy
So is the whole of natural science. What we colloquially refer to as "science" is just applied epistemology.
It always bothers me when philosophy is used as a pejorative. Not because I have some particular fondness for philosophy, but because that use stems from a shameful level of willful ignorance. Questions like "Why do the methods of science work?" and "How can they change over time and still be effective?" are decidedly philosophical questions.
Second-rate scientists with this sort of negative attitude toward philosophy remind me of the women in this old joke: A man is helping his wife prepare a roast for dinner. The womans' husband asks here why she cuts the ends off the roast before putting it in the pan. "I don't know" she replies "that's the way my mother always did it." The wife now curious, calls her mother to ask. "I don't know" her mother replies "that's the way my mother always did it." Undaunted, she calls her grandmother and asks her why she always cut the ends off the roast before putting it in the pan. Finally, she gets the answer "Because my roasting pan was too small!" O mortal
Just like the women in the story could produce a fine roast without any real understanding about how a roast should be prepared, so can the second-rate scientist produce acceptable output without having the faintest clue about how science works.
In short, you can't understand science without understanding philosophy.
This will offend a lot of people. Confronting ones own ignorance can be difficult.
I don't think there is a lot of objective experimentation going on.
I've see Biology accused of the same thing. That seems silly to me.
That's because you're not familiar with those fields. You'll find that empirical methods are the standard, just like every other science.
There is a greater reliance on ordinal data, but that's no more wrong that the hard-sciences' dependence on induction.
The problem on seems to appear when non-scientists repeat rubbish like this from other non-scientists. I suspect, however, that this particular bit of nonsense has its roots in good old fashioned discipline envy.
Way to miss the point. Live Tiles and Active Frames are completely different -- they're only superficially similar. (They only look like they could be the same thing if you've only seen a couple screenshots.)
It's pretty obvious that active frames are an evolution (more of an adaptation for smaller screens) of what we've already seen on the PlayBook, which was definitely not inspired by Windows Phone. (WebOS, no question. But from what we've seen of BB10 so far, they're long past that stage.)
But go ahead and stick your head in the sand. It's better than where I suspect you've been keeping it...
Oh, cute, an ad hominem attack. I take it, then, that you fail to realize attacking the messenger instead of the message implies that your own argument holds no water.
He did attack the message. Try to pay attention.
I take it, then, that you fail to realize repeating platitudes instead of addressing the message implies that you're a moron.
Or is it just them failing to comply with MS's flawed published document standards that not even MS complies with?
How could they? The OpenXML standard is more than 6500 pages long!
Part 4, the Markup Language Reference, weighs in at 5756 pages -- 5756 pages -- to define "every element and attribute, the hierarchy of parent/child relationships for elements, and additional semantics as appropriate"
It's madness. Pure madness. No one in their right mind could claim that such a ridiculous, impossible-to-follow, standard couldn't (or shouldn't) be dramatically simplified!
It should surprise no one that Microsoft fails to comply with their own standard -- and why it's virtually impossible to produce an implementation that is completely compatible with Microsoft Office.
I have heard that in 20 years we'll be able to download the contents of the brain.
I heard that 20 years ago.
It was just as ridiculous then as it is now. After all, more than 30 years ago it became unreasonable to assume that AGI by algorithmic means was even possible.
I can't wait for the moment ( within 20 years hopefully ) when we will have a full human brain simulation.
Talk to me in 20 years, let me know how that works out.
I don't see how tablets are any different from netbooks.
Netbooks, at least with a proper OS, were actually useful. Like an inexpensive and somewhat tiny version of the computer you had a couple years ago. They were great until they started to dramatically increase in both price and size.
Tablets are toys. Okay for playing games and light web browsing, but useless for doing much else.
Cue the guy who thinks his tablet has greatly improved his life/productivity/etc. and actually thinks you can use a tablet efficiently for meaningful work.
Slashdot Mirror
Well said.
I think there's some wiggle room in deciding which social sciences should be called sciences.
I can agree with that. Some (young) fields haven't even made it to the "classification" stage. That doesn't mean that they won't get there and move beyond it -- it's just the nature of young fields (with some exceptions, naturally).
I like that you mention cognitive science, the best exception the young field rule. Though it had the unique advantage of being generally considered an interdisciplinary effort, spanning a broad range of fields including those long accepted as science.
I don't know that I'd classify all of those young fields as philosophy. (I'm thinking of fields like leadership, breaking off prematurely from more established, and scientific, disciplines like industrial/organizational psychology.) We don't see the rigor normally associated with philosophy, nor much (if any) support from the philosophical literature like we've seen in cognitive science. I don't have a better term, but philosophy just doesn't seem to fit. (Maybe something like "practical disciplines" given the emphasis on application?)
Do you believe something changed about how people view the way in which the world "works" when the Internet was introduced into their lives?
Yes. Just as a persons worldview changes after they've spent time traveling, a major cultural shift is very likely to impacts a persons worldview.
I wasn't attacking you. I was addressing a specific statement, made by the author, that you reference. Relax, the world isn't out to get you.
(In fairness, my reply to your "strawman" post could be interpreted as an attack -- but one made in retaliation! You've got to admit, however, that it isn't exactly the most coherent thing you've ever written.)
You have not refuted the claim that the social sciences are essentially unscientific
Why should it? Would you bother to refute a nonsense claim like "marshmellows are just like pudding" or "cat's can only live on a strict diet of bicycles"? Of course not. It's not my fault that the author is a moron, nor is it my problem. (Besides, what would I offer as proof? Slowly copy/paste 50 years worth of the most popular journals?)
It's obvious to anyone without a mental disorder that the social sciences are scientific. They do, after all, apply the same methods as other sciences (with testable hypotheses and experiments and everything!). It's like claiming that Biology isn't a science.
I've run across that one myself. I'll bet you have as well. Discipline envy? Just get over it and laugh when the morons on internet discussion forums who bash biology or the social sciences fall all over themselves to produce this or that study (the fruits of biology or the social sciences) to support their argument with scientific research. :)
Did I personally offend you some time in the past?
It was a dramatic shift in worldview, but it did not directly cause people to re-evaluate how the world works
There cannot be a dramatic shift in a persons worldview without that person re-evaluating how the world works. Do you know what the term "worldview" means? Are you confused and think that it requires they do that explicitly or in some lightning-bulb moment of realization?
By developing a ubiquitous communications medium, we were able to communicate with each other rapidly and rearrange social structures, (and that affected how we perceived the world,
Hmmm... you might say that it changed their understanding about how the world works. Their worldview, if you will...
This isn't complicated. Apparently, you know how to use a dictionary. That's great. Now we just need to work on your comprehension.
Maybe you're nit-picking over the word "directly"? In that case, I'll still stand by my "What?" but won't bother to argue with you about causation. If you have even the tiniest clue, you know that's a waste of time.
I don't think you understand what half of the terms in your post mean including: straw-man, epistemology, and social sciences.
You also seem to be confusing methods with theories. Are you sure you're a biologist?
But there were radical changes to our understanding of the word that fundamentally changed fields like physics. Newton's break with mechanism and Planck/Einstein/etc.'s break with materialism were rather dramatic metaphysical shifts. There's no reason to believe that we won't break away from modern physicalism with, for example, information taking a primary role. Remember that Planck was discouraged from pursuing a career in physics as it was thought to be almost complete! How odd is it that a little over a hundred years later we're already making the same absurd assumption?
I don't know about you, but a radical change to our basic assumptions about the nature of reality seems to qualify as a "paradigm shift" to me.
Or maybe I'm crazy. I just hate the phrase paradigm shift.
Probably because it's been abused to the point that it's meaningless. Every week it seems like the press feels the need to call minor updates to popular products or industry fads being described by the press as "paradigm shifts".
It was a dramatic shift in worldview, but it did not directly cause people to re-evaluate how the world works
What?
the social sciences are a mistake: they're really veiled branches of philosophy
So is the whole of natural science. What we colloquially refer to as "science" is just applied epistemology.
It always bothers me when philosophy is used as a pejorative. Not because I have some particular fondness for philosophy, but because that use stems from a shameful level of willful ignorance. Questions like "Why do the methods of science work?" and "How can they change over time and still be effective?" are decidedly philosophical questions.
Second-rate scientists with this sort of negative attitude toward philosophy remind me of the women in this old joke: A man is helping his wife prepare a roast for dinner. The womans' husband asks here why she cuts the ends off the roast before putting it in the pan. "I don't know" she replies "that's the way my mother always did it." The wife now curious, calls her mother to ask. "I don't know" her mother replies "that's the way my mother always did it." Undaunted, she calls her grandmother and asks her why she always cut the ends off the roast before putting it in the pan. Finally, she gets the answer "Because my roasting pan was too small!" O mortal
Just like the women in the story could produce a fine roast without any real understanding about how a roast should be prepared, so can the second-rate scientist produce acceptable output without having the faintest clue about how science works.
In short, you can't understand science without understanding philosophy.
This will offend a lot of people. Confronting ones own ignorance can be difficult.
I don't think there is a lot of objective experimentation going on.
I've see Biology accused of the same thing. That seems silly to me.
That's because you're not familiar with those fields. You'll find that empirical methods are the standard, just like every other science.
There is a greater reliance on ordinal data, but that's no more wrong that the hard-sciences' dependence on induction.
The problem on seems to appear when non-scientists repeat rubbish like this from other non-scientists. I suspect, however, that this particular bit of nonsense has its roots in good old fashioned discipline envy.
He was talking about science. There's not much science in 'social sciences'.
Said the guy who understands neither...
With a few very minor exceptions
Sorry, are you from the past?
In C++ you can also do more stuff.
No. You can't. Maybe you don't understand computer basics?
There is nothing that you can do in C++ that can't also be done in C -- and usually done far more elegantly.
It's about 6-months old, but here you go:
Breakdown of VisionMobile study
C++ gives you much more power than C.
Total nonsense.
C++ causes more problems than it solves.
If you're using C++, you should probably be using C. If C isn't a good fit for your project, C++ isn't likely to be the answer.
Way to miss the point. Live Tiles and Active Frames are completely different -- they're only superficially similar. (They only look like they could be the same thing if you've only seen a couple screenshots.)
It's pretty obvious that active frames are an evolution (more of an adaptation for smaller screens) of what we've already seen on the PlayBook, which was definitely not inspired by Windows Phone. (WebOS, no question. But from what we've seen of BB10 so far, they're long past that stage.)
But go ahead and stick your head in the sand. It's better than where I suspect you've been keeping it...
I get what you're saying, but who is supposed to give them that home?
We, as a society, could do that. It turns out it's not all that expensive:
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/12/10/1311041/infographic-homelessness-christmas-decorations/?mobile=nc
Now that analogy works! A+
Oh, cute, an ad hominem attack. I take it, then, that you fail to realize attacking the messenger instead of the message implies that your own argument holds no water.
He did attack the message. Try to pay attention.
I take it, then, that you fail to realize repeating platitudes instead of addressing the message implies that you're a moron.
and thankfully don't wear short skirts.
That's only because Taco and CowboyNeil are gone.
Or is it just them failing to comply with MS's flawed published document standards that not even MS complies with?
How could they? The OpenXML standard is more than 6500 pages long!
Part 4, the Markup Language Reference, weighs in at 5756 pages -- 5756 pages -- to define "every element and attribute, the hierarchy of parent/child relationships for elements, and additional semantics as appropriate"
It's madness. Pure madness. No one in their right mind could claim that such a ridiculous, impossible-to-follow, standard couldn't (or shouldn't) be dramatically simplified!
It should surprise no one that Microsoft fails to comply with their own standard -- and why it's virtually impossible to produce an implementation that is completely compatible with Microsoft Office.
Start here, work your way forward in time:
cogprints.org/7150/1/10.1.1.83.5248.pdf
To be fair, WebGL works just fine for iAds.
I understand that you can enable it after a jailbreak as well.
I don't know why Apple refuses to enable it -- Android and BlackBerry tablets don't seem to suffer at all from having that particular feature.
I have heard that in 20 years we'll be able to download the contents of the brain.
I heard that 20 years ago.
It was just as ridiculous then as it is now. After all, more than 30 years ago it became unreasonable to assume that AGI by algorithmic means was even possible.
I can't wait for the moment ( within 20 years hopefully ) when we will have a full human brain simulation.
Talk to me in 20 years, let me know how that works out.
I don't see how tablets are any different from netbooks.
Netbooks, at least with a proper OS, were actually useful. Like an inexpensive and somewhat tiny version of the computer you had a couple years ago. They were great until they started to dramatically increase in both price and size.
Tablets are toys. Okay for playing games and light web browsing, but useless for doing much else.
Cue the guy who thinks his tablet has greatly improved his life/productivity/etc. and actually thinks you can use a tablet efficiently for meaningful work.