Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

civil_beast t1_itvwgc2 wrote

Reply to comment by platoprime 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

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.

1

platoprime t1_itvwnen wrote

>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.

0

civil_beast t1_itw0f1x wrote

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.

2