You really don’t need a degree in literature to become a published author. That’s like getting a degree in media studies so you can become a youtuber. Yeah, you could do it, and it may give you some advantages, but like… You’re already literate, right? Besides that, taking a class or two on literature or creative writing would give you a lot of the skills you need to get you on your way, which you can easily do while pursuing another degree that ensures greater monetary security or (less easily) at a community college while also working.
I’m not saying that the system that begets this thinking is good, but it is the one we live under.
Ok then, so people who vote in US elections are inherently evil? - a more analogous example
People who consume bananas are inherently evil?
People that have smartphones are inherently evil?
Those things are all choices. How about another one? Lithium mining is a bad system that negatively impacts the environment. Therefore, people that buy electric cars are evil and bad for the environment, right?!?
I disagree with the second part. That means everybody living in a first world country is inherently a bad person just by accident of their birth location. We’re well past the point of choosing whether or not we participate in most systems, and at the end of the day, somebody needs to do the job of law enforcement.
Just realized clean drinking water, electricity, transport infrastructure, etc. isn’t important. The things you think are important to the world are only important because most people in first world countries have never had to face true hardship in their lives as a result of technological advancement.
I’m not talking about string theory. Scientists disagree about things at a high level all the time. It’s how the fields move forward. They don’t disagree on the fundamentals though, which social sciences have a tendency to.
I’m not here to say the social sciences are useless. In fact I’ve stated several times that I think people need to be able to understand them and use them. I’m arguing something different entirely and I don’t know why you keep strawmanning me. It’s not about some ideological purity but a basic difference in the ability to learn things because of our inability to control the relevant variables.
I think you just don’t understand what I’m saying. All that may be true but then you would need to control for ALL those variables for good science which you just cannot do in the social sciences.
They’re important, just not really good science. They’re useful, but not in the way physics is. There aren’t competing theories of the most basic levels of understanding in the hard sciences. There are throughout the entirety of the fields of the social sciences.
I don’t think she does cracks technically, right? They’re repacks I thought
There’s a reason we have realism in political science though. Theory isnt the truth of how things play out in real life, especially when it comes to the social sciences. We need descriptions just as much, if not moreso, than prescriptions.
I agree that theory is important tho, so I’ll do my part by linking a free resource: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5GYwuvmAD_VyV6w5aFnnUw
Lots of words to say I have no proof and provide only conjecture.
Cause the middle school one is the quadratic formula. You use it to factor 2nd degree polynomials. You don’t solve for a, b, and c, you just plug them in.
Seems more like religion and blind belief to me. I agree that you can’t define consciousness in terms of particles… yet. But to say it’s impossible is a huge leap. High level biology is basically all physics and chem for this reason; it’s emergent from the 2 together. That doesn’t mean that you can’t define biological processes in terms of their chemical and physical activities though. It’s kind of like free will: we think we have it because we make ‘choices’ but at the end of the day our brain is just a series of particles, so where does the free will come from? Are we just deluding ourselves?
Can you provide an academic paper? I think I understand the concept, but I fail to see it being meaningful with relation to the examples I posed of why the social sciences aren’t scientific.
That literally has nothing to do with what Im talking about, which you should really know given your username. I’m done here.
I do read theory. I just know theory isnt the be all end all of understanding the world. If it was, that would be great, but you just happen to agree with this guys philosophical musings. Besides that, you call me a liberal when I’m literally not but whatever.
You’re arguing with an imaginary friend and a beautiful strawman opinion you made for him to hold.
I never said anything about Haiti, but comparing anybody living in a first world country (the vast majority of this site’s users and where such a revolution is more likely to take place) to a slave is disingenuous at absolute best.
I also don’t think that Dessalines needed to massacre the remaining french people on the island. I’m willing to bet I have a better und3rstanding of the haitian revolution than you. You know they reinstated slavery within a couple of years, right? Read some Trouillot.
🤡
Ah, yes, all societies and situations are homogeneous I forgot.
Besides that, people deserve to die for playing by the rules of the system in which we live? Why not change the rules to prevent abuse?
Clown
dehumanization of the other
Whooooah there buddy.
This just in: theoretical physicists are not scientists.
The worst part of calc was honestly the rude awakening that my algebra skills needed woooork