civil_beast t1_itvdvb1 wrote on October 26, 2022 at 4:15 PM

Reply to comment by SecretHeat in Logical positivism does not dispense with metaphysics, as it aimed to. It merely proposes a different kind of metaphysics, in which natural sciences take the privileged position once occupied by rationalist metaphysics. by IAI_Admin

Correct. Science requires the use of the scientific method. Which in some fields of study is impossible to achieve - either because there exists no way to isolate multivariate systems (while maintaining social ethical norms) or the experiment is not repeatable. Even social sciences truly do not meet the strictest of criteria, and instead are domains of inferrred causality.

platoprime t1_itvfn6y wrote on October 26, 2022 at 4:27 PM

You can apply the scientific method to anything you can measure.

>Even social sciences truly do not meet the strictest of criteria, and instead are domains of inferrred causality.

Preposterous. You do not need to demonstrate direct causality to apply the scientific method. The scientific method is a method of investigation that can be applied to anything not a set of direct casual results.

civil_beast t1_itvwgc2 wrote on October 26, 2022 at 6:15 PM

In theory, yes. But invariably social sciences (and if we are being honest, this is why we even have a taxonomic differentiation) have immense problems when it comes to repeatability. Repeatability is a key requirement. If your hypothesis does not qualify the domain concretely, then when results don’t support the original experiment’s conclusion - they get tossed. Practically, the ability to isolate the differences in the null-case in my experience Make reproduction not viable. Because of this, the social sciences do not have academia in those fields judging experiments by anything other than practical validation of steps taken before publishing. Largely it’s the best we have to garner understanding behaviors, and that is acceptable.

But is it a science? I apologize but no. Without verification, there is no axiomatic leverage that guarantees an outcome.

And don’t get me started with how these sciences abuse the rate of error in order to resolve inconsistent output.

platoprime t1_itvwnen wrote on October 26, 2022 at 6:16 PM

>But is it a science? I apologize but no.

It's okay. I accept your apology for your ignorance on what the scientific method is.

civil_beast t1_itw0f1x wrote on October 26, 2022 at 6:40 PM

I believe you are aware of the ongoing debate that has been had for centuries on this very topic. If you would like to comment on why my assertion of repeatability when only problematic propositions (meaning those that rely on statistical domains, and not Boolean) are used.

Seriously, I come here to learn. All in good faith. I respect anyone that uses the term “preposterous” outright… so I want to understand where you’re coming from.

YoungXanto t1_itvklp5 wrote on October 26, 2022 at 4:59 PM

Even the hard sciences are the domains of inferred causality.

Hume remarks about billiard balls

>if I see one billiard ball rolling toward another, how do I know that the second ball will move when it is struck?

That is, experience is a necessary precursor to knowledge. And our observations are limited to only the confines of the single experiment from which they emerge. Repeated measurements add evidence of a causal outcome, but the state space of our observations is necessarily a subspace of the entire space of observable outcomes and we also assume the state space is time-invariant. We can therfore never be absolutely certain about anything because we can never be absolutely certain about the space we haven't sampled (which is admittedly a bit of a tautology)