|
When a scientist measures the behaviour of particles in a carefully-defined system, they can replicate that behaviour such that they can say, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the particles always behave that way under those conditions. Such replicability has not been demonstrated in systems as complex, chaotic, and essentially unmeasurable as the human brain, let alone a human society. A field of study is not a science without replicability. Academic terminology, especially in the social "sciences," creates a scaffold of "theory" without any replicable data, and uses it to pass judgement on the behaviours of individuals without actually examining the individual's own motives for a behaviour. It's a dehumanizing assumption of determinism to believe that individuals are incapable of making decisions for themselves, or that conjectured Foucaultian structures (which could be said to exist only as linguistic sign for the speaker's own level of education) govern all human behaviour. I'd even go so far as to say that if you believe that Power Structures determine all human behaviour, you're living in the worst sort of Bad Faith. One either accepts that all study of human society (and all reexamination of values which occurs in its pursuit) is little more than observation, conjectures, and untestable hypotheses--or, one accepts that they do not understand what science is and how it is conducted and how it proceeds. Calling the social sciences "science" is about as disingenuous and unscientific as calling Art History "Temporal Paint Physics." |
What's your point? That unless we achieve the same certainty we do in physics we can't know anything?
> without any replicable data
That's just an outright lie.
> and uses it to pass judgement on the behaviours of individuals without actually examining the individual's own motives for a behaviour.
I don't think you have any clue what research says. Now you're just making stuff up.
> I'd even go so far as to say that if you believe that Power Structures determine all human behaviour, you're living in the worst sort of Bad Faith.
You're speaking from such total ignorance and justifying it by stating (with no clue) that our research is worthless, and hence you don't need to know it. No one is saying what you're saying. It's like me saying, "oh, so you're saying that all matter is energy? So how come my car can't drive on water?" In short, utter ignorance and lack of understanding and curiosity.
> One either accepts that all study of human society (and all reexamination of values which occurs in its pursuit) is little more than observation, conjectures, and untestable hypotheses--or, one accepts that they do not understand what science is and how it is conducted and how it proceeds.
Listen, buddy. After I studied math and computer science in college and graduate school, I went to study history, and, again, you have absolutely no clue. There are different practices and tools, and a different level of certainty -- sure -- but we still know a lot.
> Calling the social sciences "science" is about as disingenuous and unscientific as calling Art History "Temporal Paint Physics."
And dismissing the work of brilliant researchers without even studying it is juvenile and idiotic. No one is saying history is science in the same way that physics is science (neither is medicine, BTW). You're making up ridiculous strawmen just to convince yourself that it's OK to stay ignorant.