Nature’s preconception> social committee not only exists in schools, in the eyes of students, in the view of parents, but also in academia.
I think social science is not so separate and should not be too separate from natural science, and social science learners should also have a clear, clear logical system of thinking like when analyzing natural object.
Many books about linguists, philosophers, psychologists, politicians, cultural scholars, historians, etc. of authors whose background is medical students, engineers, lawyers or math/economy. This group book is easy to read and smart to choose from.
Because social sciences or natural sciences have a core system of scientific analysis/methodology. But this system when used to process the language of natural science will be easier because the language of social science is somewhat more complicated.
Therefore, according to my personal observation, good people naturally discuss society very well, neatly, neatly. And those who are simply good at the society who admit that poor or dislike naturally only very few are really good. The rest are mostly of the known range but know not deep, and a small part of the “hell type” pipe is a bit weird and a little crazy.
Barring students and parents, the “social sciences lagging behind natural sciences” cognitive bias has every so often existed among scholars. Inasmuch as online threads/blogs have drawn attention to their critical shortcomings over their natural counterparts.
Whilst natural sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, etc.) pour it on the universe and the material world, thus, zeroing in observations and empirical evidence; social sciences (sociology, psychology, economics and politics) instead of a key on human societies and the relationships among involved individuals. This way, such sciences have, as a rule, been inclined to the hypothesis system and as well contingent to descriptive information and mathematics (notably statistical probability).
Given the fierce long-standing controversy, natural sciences have already evidenced their superiority over societies’.
To put into perspective, given scientists’ already painful calls for research fundings, social sciences’ have been woefully subpar [1] compared to those of natural sciences — in this case — biology and technical sciences.
On the other hand, a study [2] has even indicated natural science dominance over the “meagre” social science research number, scale and citations. This is, in addition to the aforementioned funding issue, due to their malapportioned, diversified (in both schools and perceptions) specificity and a pretty much uncollaborative community. Given their natural synergistic counterparts, who cooperate to more effectively discover the nature/universe laws.
Even the barest eye can spell out social sciences’ multifariousness. Economics alone has been classified as classical, contemporary, Marxist, Keynesian [and so on] schools of thought. Psychology has been as much diversified with behavioural psychology, psychoanalysis and psychology of physical activity, etc.
As a rule, those all are radically different, thus, hardly ever intertwined, even in the most fundamental aspects.
Given that natural sciences aim attention at the universe/nature laws, in this manner, are rather objective; social “sciences” instead of the key on … themselves — on the societies they’ve long thrived in.
By pieces, an economic model from any school is rarely of high probability. There’s indeed no model enough reliable for us to ever count on. The problem with an economic forecast is that once we’ve drawn out a scenario, and the entire society bank on it, it would, in all likelihood, never take place.
This way, social sciences are, on the whole, exceptional at analyzing the past and contemporary world instead of projecting the future. For it’s the outcome of such a sophisticated society, inseparable from the societies, thus, provides no objective social observation. The social forecast model is as much pain as societies have been ever-evolving towards innovations instead of reordering what’s formerly existed.
Still, social sciences have recently been what hook the most of our attention. We’ve all too often witnessed “calls” for “online” economics, sociology and psychology movements, but rarely biology, physics and chemistry. We’ve gone online to discuss Stoicism, conformational bias and the game theory instead of medical technology or rocket engineering.
Are natural sciences, to all appearances, more convoluted and superior, yet less popular, given the “everyday” nature of social sciences?
This post is to further discuss this question before this Belief and Science comes to an end. Which means the following comments would be better worth reading than my meagre post.
Whilst on the subject, social sciences themselves have woefully suffered from social biases, to demonstrate, “these are not real sciences”, or “social sciences breed anti-scientific beliefs”. How much falsifiable are they?
